From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys was: Re: PETA in hot water
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 06:08:29 GMT

From article <mhulsey-040193101852@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> In article <C07Bwo.EFA@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Reread the statement, Martin, and try to think about it critically
>> without bending and shaping the evidence to make it fit your theories:
>> 
>> ========================================================================
>> ... Scientists  who  work  with  animals now know that they are being
>> scrutinized,  and  they act accordingly. "Today, you'd never see conditions
>> like  the Silver Spring Monkeys because people are more conscious of this,"
>> says Gerone. "Ten years ago, there was a lot less consciousness on the part
>> of researchers about how they cared for animals. The animal rights movement
>> has  done a great deal to increase the consciousness of people working with
>> animals."
>> 
>> see The Washington Post, February 24, 1991, FINAL Edition
>> ========================================================================
>> 
>> It's hardly a condemnation of Taub.  Rather, it's a statement about
>> growing awareness in the research community.
> 
> Wrong, Russell.  The statement "Today, you'd never see conditions like  the
> Silver Spring Monkeys because people are more conscious of this..." 
> implies wrongdoing on Taub's part.  You are foolish to suggest otherwise.

No, Martin.  It's you who's being foolish.  Gerone has adamantly defended
Taub on numerous occasions, yet he still seems to believe that conditions
have improved around the country because of the notoreity of the Silver
Spring Monkey case.  As the director of the Delta Primate Center, it's
obvious that he may be in a better position than you to understand the
improvements.  Do you have any personal factual knowledge of the conditions
that may have been typical back in 1980?

>>[...]
>> > No.  I agree that the SSM case heightened awareness on both sides.  Anyone
>> > who is yet convinced that Taub was cruel to his monkeys is sucking up to
>> > PETA's propaganda machine.  The amendments to the AWA also deserve some
>> > credit for improved conditions in animal labs.
>> 
>> Perhaps.  Why don't you name some of the anti-AR groups that you
>> support and tell us about their stand re: animal welfare legislation?
> 
> Why should I?  I am no more obligated to defend these groups than you are
> obligated to defend PETA.

You've stated above that the amendments to the AWA deserve credit for 
improved conditions.   It's not unreasonable for me to ask you to 
define the positions that various AR groups adopted (either pro or con)
in response to proposed animal welfare legislation.

>> Some of your readers would have been more critical of your "evidence"
>> had they realized that it was written by the principal player, Martin.
>> 
>> > If you would question this article because it was written by Taub, would
>> > you also question an account written by Pacheco?  
>> 
>> Of course.  I'm just as critical of the information published by PETA 
>> as I am critical of the information published by Taub and Martin 
>> Hulsey.  In fact, I've corresponded with PETA on several occasions to 
>> complain about the lack of documentation in many of their articles.  
>> You, on the other hand, seem to be ready and willing to accept any
>> arguments that support your ideology.  
> 
> Nope.

Yet, you readily accept Taub's arguments without any additional
verification.

>  
>> > If you will compare
>> > Taub's article with Pacheco's chapter in Singer's book (you know, the guy
>> > that you falsely claimed to support animal "rights"),  ...
>> 
>> Unanswered question #8:
> 
> Note that Russell's questions become "unanswered" as he posts them.  My
> questions do not become "unanswered" until they have been evaded at least
> once.
> 
>> Do you have any proof to demonstrate that I made "false claims" about
>> Singer's position?
> 
> Yes, you asked me how Hitler's support for animal "rights" might differ
> from that of Regan or Singer.  You were falsely implying that Singer
> supported animal "rights."  I will find your exact statement and post it
> later.

You're changing your tune, Martin.  Notice how you've switched from the
statement that I made a "false claim" to the statement that I was
"implying" such and such?   

Once again, here's the passage that you're alluding to:

=========================================================================
I'd be happy to answer your question after you've defined the term "animal
rights" with sufficient precision that we can compare the "animal rights"
philosophy espoused by Singer or Regan with the "animal rights" philosophy
that was espoused by the nazis.
=========================================================================

I'd be happy to discuss Singer's position in depth, if you have the 
inclination.

>> > you will find that
>> > Taub's article is based on court testimony.  Pacheco's account of events is
>> > refuted by seven individuals who testified under oath at Taub's trial. 
>> > This includes an official of the USDA who made unannounced inspections in
>> > Taub's lab.
>> 
>> Do you have any proof, apart from Taub's assertions, to support this 
>> claim?   
> 
> No, and I do not need any.  

This is an amazing declaration.   It strongly suggests that you're willing
to believe what you want to believe, and expect us to follow suit.

> Taub's assertions are backed by the court
> testimony of seven individuals.  Pacheco's assertions are refuted by these
> seven people.  

So says Taub.  If Pacheco were to proclaim that one hundred witnesses
said 'such and such', would this indicate that he had the "backing"
of a hundred people?

> If you question Taub's supported assertions, you should also
> question Pacheco's unsupported assertions.

I agree.   Have you bothered to seek out additional literature that
might help you examine Taub's statements more critically?

>> The reason I'm asking is that a previous contributor to 
>> talk.politics.animals claimed that he had met Taub personally on 
>> several occasions and that Taub had stated that neither he nor 
>> his attorneys had a transcript of the trial, and for this reason,
>> were obliged to rely on their recollection of events.  This weakness 
>> was cited as the cause of the "misunderstanding" that led to Katie 
>> McCabe's erroneous allegations in the infamous Washingtonian 
>> article.  
> 
> At that time, Taub might not have had a copy of the transcript.  He now
> does.

How do you know, Martin?

>> >> BTW, the Washington Post article that I cited was written by a WP 
>> >> reporter, Peter Carlson, and not by Alex Pacheco.
>> > 
>> > I never implied otherwise.  I implied that the _Washington Post_ did not
>> > read the opinion of the Maryland Court of Appeals when writing their story.
>> 
>> How do you know, Martin?
> 
> I refer you to another post where I addressed this issue.

Are you referring to the posting where you told us that your statements
were simply "opinions"?

>>[...]
>> > I have already covered this.  Are you trying to imply dishonesty on my
>> > part?  Why don't you stick to animal issues such as my unanswered
>> > questions?  For example, I'm still waiting for you to explain how the Ames
>> > test for bacterial mutagenicity is a satisfactory "alternative" for the
>> > Draize test of ocular irritancy.
>> 
>> Since you posed the question, why don't you answer it?
> 
> I am not the one who claimed that the Ames test is an "alternative" to the
> Draize test.  You are.  The burden of proof is upon you.  You repeatedly
> make this point to me, yet forget it when it is convenient. 

You're asking me to prove a point I didn't make, Martin.  The fact that
the Ames test is useful to predict carcinogenicity isn't alterred by
the fact that it may be unsuitable for other specific needs.

>>While you're at
>> it, why don't you list all the scientific complaints that have been
>> levied at the draize test since it was first introduced in US product
>> testing programs? 
> 
> Why should I?

If we're going to be nitpicky about the limitations of draize alternatives,
we ought to be equally nitpicky about the limitations of the draize
test itself.

>  
>>[...]
>> I agree that you have some silly ideas about usenet as well as the
>> peer review process.
> 
> Be specific. 

I think it was silly for you to pretend that *any* of your usenet postings
were "peer-reviewed".

>>Since you seem to think that "peer" review would
>> enhance your credibility, I'm wondering if I should have my peers conduct
>> a review of my postings.
> 
> No, you should have your peers review and correct your dispicable tactics. 
> For example, ask them if it is appropriate to repeatedly evade my
> questions, yet demand answers from me "without delay."  Ask them if it is
> appropriate to label a question as "unanswered," thus implying its evasion,
> when the question is first posed.  When you have completed that, you might
> begin working your way down Mary Otto's more comprehensive list of your
> tactics to see if any changes in your behavior are indicated there. 

Would you be willing to retract this statement if I can demonstrate
that I posed these questions previously?

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