From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys was: Re: PETA in hot water
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 14:27:58 GMT

In article <C05AqB.3z8@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
>[...]
> > Gerone's "hands on" experience with these monkeys months after the Taub
> > incident has absolutely no bearing on whether Taub treated his monkeys in a
> > cruel fashion.  Gerone's assessment of Taub is an opinion that is obviously
> > not based on the legal record.  He is, in this instance, acting as an
> > apologist for PETA.  
> 
> You're jumping to conclusions here -- bigtime.  

Not really.  Gerone's opinion of Taub is not consistent with the legal
record.  It is consistent with PETA's account of the events.
 
> > Despite being targeted and set up by Pacheco, Taub was
> > fully exhonorated of all cruelty charges.  THAT is what Gerone should say.
> 
> Thanks for telling us what people ought to think and say, Martin.  

That is, if Gerone wants to tell the truth, he should say that Taub was
fully exhonorated.  Of course, he is otherwise free to say anything he
likes.
 
> Most of the animal researchers whom I know personally seem to 
> think that the conditions of animals in laboratories have 
> improved substantially over the last decade, largely because of 
> the Silver Spring Monkey case.  Are they "apologists" for PETA, 
> Martin?

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.

> >>[...]
> I'm critical of everything that I read, Martin... including materials
> published by PETA.  Yet you've cited the CFAAR article as a reliable
> source on many occasions without bothering to mention that it was
> written by Taub himself?  Why not?  Was the authorship an unimportant
> detail?

I withheld nothing.  I do not always cite authors as parts of references I
give, unless they are books.  I gave this info immediately when first
asked.

If you would question this article because it was written by Taub, would
you also question an account written by Pacheco?  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"), 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.
 
> 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.
 As promised, I will send you a copy when and if I get my hands on the
document. 
 
> > --
> > mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
> > Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
> 
> Nice signature, Martin.  Why don't you tell us again about your
> efforts to have your usenet postings subjected to "peer-review"?

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.

My peers did not have the time to review my posts, which became much more
frequent (largely, thanks to you) than I originally anticipated.  The
system was not ideal because it was not blind review.  Besides, the process
of "opponent review" is equally effective.  Don't you agree?

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