From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:29:00 GMT

In article <C03BxC.H6w@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
>If/when you convince me that this line of reasoning has merit, I 
>suppose I'll have to take a few minutes to prepare a long list of 
>"unanswered Martin Hulsey questions".  Here are two questions to 
>get us started:

I may have left some of your recent questions unanswered due to technical
problems.  I have never intentionally dodged any of your questions for
numerous times over several weeks.  Please give me the opportunity to
answer them again.  Please answer my questions.

> #1:  Are you finally willing to admit that your "unanswered questions" 
>      about my alleged presence at a meeting in Athens, Georgia, were
>      irrelevant to the major issues at hand?   If so, why did you
>      repeatedly insist that you were asking pertinent questions?

I believe that I have already admitted such, but my archives are faulty at
this point.  Perhaps someone else can fill in the blanks here.  I do
remember asking you why you offered such a forthright and prompt response
to this admittedly irrelevant question, then complained that you would not
answer the remainder of the questions because they were irrelevant.  Don't
you see the inconsistency here?  Did you or did you not choose to finally
answer my questions? 

> #2:  Is it a mark of reason, or mere stupidity, when a debater chooses to
>      focus on the alleged personality attributes of his opponents, rather 
>      than addressing the relevant facts and arguments?

Call me stupid if you wish.  It does not change the fact that you cannot or
will not answer my questions.
 
>[...]
> You've outdone yourself, Martin.  I've come to expect your appeals to 
> authority, but this new appeal to _nameless_ authorities hits a new 
> lowpoint.  

I'm not appealing to any authority here.  I am trying to answer one of your
questions.  As you say below, the opinions of these eight nameless lawyers
does not matter.
 
>[...]
> The opinion that matters is the opinion of the Maryland Appeals 
> Court...  not "some lawyers".  According to the Washington Post [not 
> just PETA], Taub's conviction was overturned when the Court ruled 
> that state animal cruelty laws did not apply to federally funded 
> animal experiments.  

The _Washington Post_ was partially correct here, but was swallowing PETA's
misleading arguments by ignoring the remainder the the Appeals Court's
opinion.  Besides, the opinion of PETA and the _Washington Post_ doesn't
really matter, does it?

The Appeals Court of Maryland did rule that Federal law was dispositive of
Maryland law.  The Court *also* noted the potential value of Taub's
research for rehabilitating movement after stroke in humans, and classified
Taub's research under the heading of "certain normal human activities" to
which Section 59 of the Maryland State Animal Cruelty Statute does not
apply.  As you say, this is the opinion that matters.

> > PETA is clearly unjustified in the position they have maintained 
> > as factual.  It is simply a matter of trying to turn a decisive 
> > legal defeat into a PR victory.  
> 
> So you say.  

Yep.  
 
> > ...
> > I am not sure how historians will treat this incident.  The PETA public
> > relations machine has Taub convicted in the minds of many, even among those
> > who otherwise support animal research.  We must keep in mind that Taub was
> > fully exhonorated of all charges.  Despite being targeted and set up by
> > PETA co-founder Alex Pacheco, it has not been proven in any forum that Dr.
> > Edward Taub mistreated his monkeys.
> 
> Isn't the concept of "mistreatment" a matter of opinion?   

Yes.  One could also correctly say that Taub never treated his monkeys in a
cruel manner.

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals