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 01:33:56 GMT

From article <mhulsey-161292155706@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> In article <Bz9q1t.Ayr@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>> Again, thanks for admitting that you lacked the ability to analyze
>> the evidence. 
> 
> 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.

>> 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?

> [...]
>> Your facts are grossly insufficient.
> 
> My facts, referenced in the Nazi press, are sufficient to prove that Nazi
> Germany proclaimed support for animal "rights."

Not really.  You haven't even defined your terms, much less proven
that your claims have any real merit.

> ...
>> - 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.

>> - Please define the term "nazi press".   In particular, do you have
>>   any idea how many publishing organizations/companies this term might
>>   entail, not to mention the total volume of published material?
> 
> Do you not understand the implications of National *Socialism*?  Do you
> suggest that Hitler did not exert control over the Nazi press?

Did Hitler have some control over the "nazi press"?  Yes, of course.
Was Hitler in a position to control the wording of every document
dealing with every issue?   Of course not.

> The "volume of published material" produced by the Nazi press is
> irrelevant.  Just focus on the references I gave. 

Of course, it's relevant.  At the very least, it would give us some
insights into the significance of your claims.   

>>[...]
>> Please explain the connection that you perceive between the opposition
>> to "vivisection" [make sure that you've defined the term precisely
>> in historical context] and Hitler's mistreatment of jews.
> 
> The term "vivisection" is the same in English as German.

Please define the term, Martin.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: twv@hpcss01.cup.hp.com (Terry Von Gease)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 18:32:58 GMT
Subject: Re: Small pet horrors
Organization: the Lodi Home for the Bald