From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:38:32 GMT

From article <mhulsey-171292085957@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> In article <BzDr0n.408@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>> 
>> > I admit no such thing.  I am no less qualified than you to evaluate this
>> > evidence-- unless, of course, your mysterious, top secret, "ivy-league
>> > degree" is in history.
>> 
>> How would you know, Martin???   I speak and read french with some 
>> fluency, and once upon a time, I was reasonably adept in reading 
>> german.  I'm rusty now, but with a little practice I'm sure I could
>> pass the kind of exam that might be administered to "PhD" candidates 
>> in history.   You, on the other hand, are apparently limited to 
>> parroting the opinions of the endocrinologist-historians who've
>> contribute their work, not to a publication devoted to historical
>> studies, but to _Endocrinology_.  Go figure.
> 
> My reference in Endocrinology was simply a pointer to a German *historical
> reference* which, in turn, cited a *primary* reference to the Nazi press. 
> This primary reference contains a passage that proclaimed Nazi support for
> the "rights" of animals.  The forthcoming translation will indicate the
> veracity of my claim.

Are you a clairvoyant, Martin?  If not, how do you know that a piece
of unseen proof is going to prove your claim?   Better still, what makes
you think that small handful of nazi comments on animal-related issues
would make sense if/when viewed in the context of the entire nazi
era?

Are you one of those "scientists" who knows in advance how the 
experimental data is going to turn out?  

>> >> In the past, you've criticized Dr. Neil Barnard for offering nutritional
>> >> advice to american citizens... presumably because Barnard has a degree in
>> >> medicine rather than "nutrition science".    In view of such criticism,
>> >> don't you think it's kinda hypocritical for you to promote these "nazi"
>> >> allegations, given the fact that you can't read german and apparently
>> >> have little expertise (if any) in historical studies?
>> > 
>> > Not at all.  You apparently cannot or will not understand the difference
>> > between posting to UseNet and making a press conference calling for
>> > alteration of dietary recommendations for Americans.
>> 
>> Why don't you explain it to me, Martin?   Are you saying that discussions
>> taking place in the medium of newspapers and television should meet
>> a different set of standards than the discussions that take place in
>> the medium of usenet?    What gives you the right to set such standards?
> 
> Usenet participants are computer literate and educated.  As such, they are
> better equipped to recognize the misinformation that comes from PCRM or
> you.  The consumers of newspaper and television media are less capable, and
> are more susceptable to being mislead about important issues of health &
> nutrition.

You're dreaming.   

> It is deceitful for the so-called "Physicians Committee for Responsible
> Medicine" to mislead the public into believing that they represent
> mainstream medical thought, when they are actually a fringe group
> representing a slim minority of physicians.  

Can truth be determined by polling?  If not, why would it make any
difference if PCRM's membership constitutes a minority or majority
of physicians?    

> It is deceitful also for them
> to suggest altering NAS-NRC dietary recommendations when no one at PCRM,
> particularly Barnard, has training in nutrition.

How do you know?   Have you asked Barnard to explain his background?

Is it deceitful for you to pretend that you understand both animal
rights philosophies as well as nazi political thought?   Have you had
any training in these areas?

> ...
>> >> - Please specify the full set of "rights" that were proclaimed by the
>> >>   "nazi press"?
>> > 
>> > Why?  This is not the issue.
>> 
>> Uh huh.  You'd have us believe that the nazis were "animal rights"
>> advocates, yet you refuse to disclose the precise set of "rights" 
>> in question.
> 
> After we evaluate whether or not the Nazis proclaimed support for animal
> "rights," we may investigate the ramifications of that proclaimed support. 
> As I said earlier, it is irrelevant whether or not the Nazi concept of
> animal "rights" is congruent with yours.

If you're going to claim that the nazis supported "animal rights", you
ought to be prepared to define the term.  So far, you've failed to do 
so.

>>[...]
>> > The term "vivisection" is the same in English as German.
>> 
>> Please define the term, Martin.
> 
> Please look it up yourself.

You claim to be familiar with the material.  Why don't you just
tell me?

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