HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: animals in research
Date: 16 Dec 92 23:28:04 GMT
Organization: WP Group


Martin Hulsey writes:
mh> I have stated numerous times that Barnard is probably a fine 
mh> psychiatrist.  

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> How would you know?   If you don't know, then what were you hoping
rl> to accomplish by making such statements on "numerous occasions" without
rl> having the facts to prove your point?   

> ...
mh> I repeat, HE HAS ABSOLUTELY NO CREDENTIALS IN NUTRITION, AND AN 
mh> ABYSMAL PUBLICATION RECORD.  

rl> How do you know?  Please tell us how many articles Dr. Barnard has
rl> published, and how you determined the figure.  

From article <mhulsey-161292100622@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
mh> [rest of exchange deleted.  To be addressed at a later date.]

Why are you stalling, Martin?   As a "scientist" who understands the
concept of intellectual integrity, I'm sure that you wouldn't have
voiced your opinions unless you had the facts to prove your point.

In particular, please tell us how many articles Dr. Barnard has
published, without further delay.  And, of course, be sure to
tell us how you determined this figure.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hulsey/Lawrence Credentials
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:17:30 GMT

From article <mhulsey-171292155226@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> In article <1992Dec17.154508.20261@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
> jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) wrote:
>> What is so interesting, however, about Russell is the extent to which
>> he seems to need to shroud himself in mystery.  It, and he, is
>> intriguing!
> 
> Russell has picked up little personal tidbits about me here & there such as
> where I got my degree and my area of study.  He has attempted to use this
> information against me in his arguments.  My guess is that he fears the
> same treatment.

Where did you pick up the information (if any) to support your claim
that Neal Barnard isn't qualified to discuss nutritional issues?   Is
there some sort of exam that one could use to determine a doctor's
familiarity with nutritional issues? 

> It is most curious to me that he *so afraid* to admit whether or not he
> visited Athens, Georgia last April for a PETA debate.  What possible harm
> could come from that?  Perhaps he has something to hide.

Perhaps I don't wish to waste my time responding to silly conjectures.

> Following the debate, I discussed animal "rights" issues with a bright
> young fellow, approximately 25 years of age, with slim build, fair
> complexion and dark hair.
>
> This fellow argued vociferously about the NCI abandoning animal screens. 
> He brought up the tragedy that occurred with Thalidomide.  A few months
> later, after I became a usenet participant, I see Russell giving identical
> lines of argument to Bob Straubinger.  It was more than identical lines of
> argument; the wording this mysterious fellow used sounded uncannily like
> Russell's syntax.
> 
> Later, when I suggested that few, if any, scientists supported animal
> "rights," the mysterious fellow gave Neal Barnard as a counterexample. 
> Deja vu.
> 
> I am so sorry that I did not ask this mysterious stranger his name.  I
> suppose I must remain forever puzzled about whether this mysterious
> stranger was Russell Lawrence, because the equally mysterious Russell will
> probably never provide the answer.

It wasn't me, Martin.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 05:22:36 GMT

In <BzDFEo.Mu@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Pagan dancer???  Please define the meaning of this term, and 
>explain why you think it's relevant to an intellectual discussion.  

	Reprinted in my .sig, with permission, is the quote.  Its
relevance and definition is all too clear to those who remember it
was made in reply to you.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: Are you sure you're not prejudiced?
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:24:07 GMT

In article <viking.724290520@vincent2.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>
>>Are you defending yourself against the rats, or mice, or whoever, who are
>>killed in vivisection laboratories?

What I am doing is fighting for survival.  Is this wrong?

                                      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
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:16:55 GMT

In article <Bz9zI5.BJu@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
> From article <mhulsey-141292090123@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> mh> Have you accomplished ANYTHING in your life outside of UseNet?  
> mh> Is UseNet your occupation?  What does the "WP" in "WP Group" 
> mh> stand for?  Word Processing?  Wombat protection?  Wanton 
> mh> paranoia?  Waffling prevarication?  
> 
> Interesting.  Were you hoping to establish the truthfulness 
> of your position by ridiculing the name of my company?  Is this 
> the sort of behavior that one should expect from "doctors" like 
> yourself in the University of Georgia's Department of Nutrition 
> Science?  

Were you trying to establish the truthfulness of *your* position by
ridiculing my employment?  I responded to your snide comments _quid pro
quo_.  You consider it reasonable to make offhand remarks about your
opponents, but when they return fire, you holler "ad hominem! ad hominem!" 
This is PRECISELY the "sort of behavior" that everyone expects from a
"pagan dancer" like you.

>[rest of exchange deleted.  To be addressed at a later date.]

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu                      Society for Neuroscience
Martin G. Hulsey                              National Rifle Association
Dept. Foods & Nutrition      Society for the Study of Ingestive Behavior
University of Ga.    North American Association for the Study of Obesity
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 23:06:14 GMT

From article <mhulsey-181292093625@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
>> My alleged shortcomings won't change the fact that you've made some
>> personal accusations that you apparently couldn't substantiate.
> 
> Your shortcomings are not "alleged," but factual.  I cannot prove that
> Barnard does not have a degree or other credentials in nutrition.  If he
> did, he would have indicated so when he wrote his book on "nutrition"
> called "The Power of Your Plate" or when giving any one of his many press
> conferences.  He clearly has no publications referenced in Medline remotely
> related to nutrition, as I demonstrated.

Cut the crap, Martin.  You mentioned the results from a medline 
search to "prove" that Neil Barnard has a "ABYSMAL PUBLICATION 
RECORD" [your caps] while claiming that you deserve credit 
for eight publications.  

Yet, when I searched medline to look for those publications 
(using your methodology), I could find only three articles.  And 
none of those had any connection with the medical issues at 
stake in the milk controversy.  Either you're lying about your 
own publications history, or, perhaps you'll admit that a medline 
search isn't a great way to evaluate the sum total of a man's 
intellectual merits.  

BTW, did you bother to examine the publications history of Frank
Oski and Benjamin Spock?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson)
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Organization: AC Nielsen Co., Bannockburn IL
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 21:55:34 GMT

rl =  russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
mh =  mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)

rl: Would you mind specifying the precise german term that was used in order
rl: to proclaim such support?

mh: This will be forthcoming upon translation.  I, too, am keenly interested in
mh: this point.

rl: Why don't you type in the term?   I'll translate it myself.


Please tell us what qualifies you to give an accurate translation.
Perhaps you have a degree in German?  If so, from where?

--
John Kapson, future graduate of the Lawrence Academy of "Debate"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: Rosemary Waigh <rwaigh@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Speciesism was Re: Reform party platform (a sampling of)
Reply-To: rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 16:01:22 GMT

In article <1992Dec8.185208.10615@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:
>
>Rosemary, two questions:
>
>1) How about vegetable production systems that entail human pain/
>exploitation to bring the produce to our tables?  I'm sure you
>would join in attempts to minimize this pain, as I would.  Just
>for clarification, if you were aware that the workers who picked
>the lettuce you eat were exploited would you change brands?  Are
>you sure that the vegetables and fruits you now eat are pain free?
>
I have been having trouble finding information on which fruits and vegetables
are pain free.  I would appreciate any information on this matter which
anyone could provide.

>2)  Do you believe non-human animals that people commonly eat--
>cows, chickens, pigs--can be killed painlessly.
>
Even if it were possible, which I doubt, I don't think it would be any more
ethical than killing humans painlessly.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Human motivation and true altruism 
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:28:13 GMT

From article <1992Dec16.154452.24461@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, by motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto):
> In article <1992Dec15.133412.16980@pixel.kodak.com> young@serum.kodak.com writes:
>>In article <BzA9Fz.EqK@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>
>>>Rich Young writes (on November 6th):
>>>ry> Please name one human activity that CANNOT be explained by one of 
>>>ry> these:
>>>ry>
>>>ry> 1. the desire to increase pleasurable ("good") feelings in the 
>>>ry> one performing the activity, or,
>>>ry> 
>>>ry> 2. the desire to decrease or avoid unpleasurable ("bad") feelings
>>>ry> in the one performing the activity.
> 
> Rich, the only human activity I can think of that does not meet either
> of these criteria is Russell's proclivity to post volumes of "content-free"
> psuedo-argument.  Perhaps this falls into the same exception category
> as those sadly insane people who burn themselves over and over again
> with lit cigarettes in perpetual self-torture, unable to stop themselves
> from carrying out a self-destructive and painful compulsion.

Would a man who volunteers to be crucified belong in this category?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Human motivation and true altruism 
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 04:21:33 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Yes, yes, we know that some people always behave selfishly, but 
rl> to the best of my knowledge, no one's presented any evidence to 
rl> show that all behavior is selfishly motivated.  

Rich Young writes:
ry> Please name one human activity that CANNOT be explained by one of 
ry> these:
ry>
ry> 1. the desire to increase pleasurable ("good") feelings in the 
ry> one performing the activity, or,
ry> 
ry> 2. the desire to decrease or avoid unpleasurable ("bad") feelings
ry> in the one performing the activity.

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Another one of your "prove me wrong" arguments, Rich???
rl>
rl> Please present us with the evidence that you have available to
rl> prove your claim that *all* altruistic behavior is selfishly motivated.
rl>
rl> I previously wrote:
=====================================================================
rl> It seems to me that "guilt" arises, not simply from some innate 
rl> feature of humankind, but from an individual's realization that 
rl> he has violated a particular cultural taboo.  If it's true that 
rl> all such taboos arise from someone's desire to avoid guilt, then 
rl> we'd have to conclude that big taboos (big guilt) arise from 
rl> medium-size taboos (medium guilt), and that medium-size taboos 
rl> arise from small taboos (small guilt).  Question: Where do these 
rl> small taboos come from?  
=====================================================================
rl>
rl> Please answer this last question.

From article <1992Dec15.004943.20653@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young):
ry> When you answer my question, I'll consider addressing yours.  

I already did.  If all behavior is selfishly motivated, how do you
explain the initial development of taboos?

ry> In the meantime, I suggest that you refer to the discussion between
ry> myself and Bob Black on this very subject which has ensued over the
ry> month and a half since I asked you.  You had your chance.
ry> 
ry> Please note that the article Russell now wants to address is dated
ry> November 6, 1992.

Do circular arguments have an expiration date?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Human motivation and true altruism
Date: 16 Dec 1992 23:40:16 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <BzDFn2.tI@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1992Dec16.154452.24461@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, by motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto):
>> In article <1992Dec15.133412.16980@pixel.kodak.com> young@serum.kodak.com writes:
>>>In article <BzA9Fz.EqK@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>>>>Rich Young writes (on November 6th):
 
>>>>ry> 2. the desire to decrease or avoid unpleasurable ("bad") feelings
>>>>ry> in the one performing the activity.
 
>> Rich, the only human activity I can think of that does not meet either
>> of these criteria is Russell's proclivity to post volumes of "content-free"
>> psuedo-argument.  Perhaps this falls into the same exception category
>> as those sadly insane people who burn themselves over and over again
>> with lit cigarettes in perpetual self-torture, unable to stop themselves
>> from carrying out a self-destructive and painful compulsion.

>Would a man who volunteers to be crucified belong in this category?

>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000

You wouldn't try to imply that Jesus Christ belongs in the category you
mention above would you Russell?  Actually I guess it wouldn't surprise
me to see you taking whatever pokes you can at a religion that is based
on "mindless acceptance".  You continue to set new standards for foolish-
ness.  I forget who it was who stated the obvious that you have become 
nothing more than an irritant and the sadly comedic clown of t.p.a. (I 
added the clown part :-) )

Mike Linan


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: PETA leader writes book on ALF
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 04:31:03 GMT

jjohnson@convex.com (Jennifer L. Johnson) writes:

>When I ask myself, "Could I participate in an illegal activity to liberate an
>animal from its tormentor," my initial answer is a resounding "No!"  But
>however negatively I view lawlessness, I can envision situations in which
>I would feel compelled to act on behalf of an animal.  For example, if I
>came upon a child about to set fire to his dog, I wouldn't hesitate to take
>away the dog, even though I know it would be theft to do so.  Legal or not,
>this would be the Right Thing to do.

	For the record, a part of British Common Law, which is a part of
US law, is that breaking one law is fine so long as you broke it to prevent
an even greater law from being broken.  I believe Amy Carter used this
particular point in her defense when she was on charges for something or
other, and I also remember hearing "Hanoi" Jane Fonda commenting that
this would be her defense should she be brought up on charges from her
Vietnam War daze.  As a side note, this is why we have such things as
"justifiable homicide," since killing somebody is seen as a lesser evil
than submitting to a life-threatening attack.

	Flames?  Not from me.  I merely have a different set of moral
values from a life spent in close contact with the realities of food.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:32:41 GMT

From article <mhulsey-141292112739@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> In article <Bz7zqw.1B2@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>> 
>>[...]
>> Not really.  Professional historians specialize in particular periods... 
>> like everybody else.  I doubt that *any* professional historians spend
>> a lot of time reading _Endocrinology_, much less historians who have
>> a joint interest in the nazi era as well as the animal rights movement.  
>> 
>> In time, I suspect the publication of these "nazi" claims in journals
>> like _Endocrinology_ will be regarded as far more interesting artifacts
>> that any alleged "animal rights" statements set forth by famous nazis.
> 
> Let me get this straight Russell.  You say that professional historians
> will not  spend a lot of time reading "nazi" claims in journals like
> _Endocrinology_, yet, in time, they will regard them as "far more
> interesting artifacts?"

Can you understand the difference between:

- a forum of historical study, and
- a focal point of historical study.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:56:55 GMT

From article <1992Dec13.203630.11750@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
> In article <Bz47Lr.2MC@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>No, it's not clear at all, Greg.  I noticed that *all* of your 
>>references came from journals of associations with a vested 
>>interest in the status quo.  And they're obviously intended to 
>>serve a political goal by demeaning the views of opponents by means
>>of fallacious "nazi" name-calling.   Typical.
> 
> I can't believe I skipped over this the first time I read it.  Of course
> the organizations have an interest in the topic.  Otherwise they would not
> have brought it to the attention of their readers.  However, this does not
> mean that they are free to print falsified information.  I will admit that
> the information in Pro-AR journals is not blantantly falsified.   They may
> and do stretch the facts or conviently forget to mention anesthetic for
> example.  But, there is a quote here from Goring stating that vivisection
> on all types of animals has been banned.  How can that be misconstruded?
> Don't you think it would be pretty damn bold of an internationally read
> journal to make this up?

Not really.  Professional historians specialize in particular periods... 
like everybody else.  I doubt that *any* professional historians spend
a lot of time reading _Endocrinology_, much less historians who have
a joint interest in the nazi era as well as the animal rights movement.  

In time, I suspect the publication of these "nazi" claims in journals
like _Endocrinology_ will be regarded as far more interesting artifacts
that any alleged "animal rights" statements set forth by famous nazis.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:27:24 GMT


Greg Popken wrote:
gp> Goring called for a complete ban on vivisection
gp> in Aug. of 1933.  It is a historical fact . there is no room for
gp> interpretation here...  
gp> If this was not done in support of animal rights,
gp> perhaps you could give a few alternative reasons why the Third Reich would
gp> do this.

In article <Bz7yKr.149@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
rl> Can you explain why you support the "Animal Welfare Act" if it's not
rl> for "animal rights"?

From article <mhulsey-141292111636@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
mh> Sorry to burst in here guys, but Russell is here employing a familiar
mh> tactic of the animal "rights" movement.  That is, he is pointing to an
mh> advance in animal welfare and proclaiming it to be an advance in animal
mh> 'rights'."  Russell should note that the legislation was called the "Animal
mh> Welfare Act," not the "Animal Rights Act."

I noticed that you deleted Greg's original comments from your 
posting, Martin.  I've edited those comments back in so that you
can re-read them, and think about them critically.  Specifically,
I'll call your attention to the following statement:

   "If this was not done in support of animal rights, 
    perhaps you could give a few alternative reasons why 
    the Third Reich would do this."

Thanks for pointing out that it's fallacious to assume that a given
speaker favors "animal rights" simply because he's opposed to animal
mistreatment.

mh> There is no evidence that we must give "rights" to animals in order to
mh> provide for their welfare or humane treatment.  

Yet, you'd have us believe that the nazis were "animal rights" advocates
because they were allegedly opposed to vivisection, as practiced in the
1930's.

The practice of using terms like "animal rights" and "vivisection"
ambiguously for the purpose of deceipt is called "equivocation", but 
you already knew that.  Didn't you? 

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