From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: research in medicine
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 05:24:31 GMT

From article <1992Nov22.031924.6200@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
gp> I'm not sure what information Martin cited to the McCabe article.  
gp> (I remember him saying that in fact he didn't use information from it)

In citing the McCabe article, did Martin bother to explain that the 
article had been retracted?  [no]  Why not?

gp> Regardless, the entire article was not retracted.  Retractions only
gp> involved
gp> 1) The statement regarding Pacheco's photographs and his responsibilities
gp> in the lab.
gp> 2)Statements regarding the use of PETA funds to pay the fine and legal
gp> fees of a man convicted for breaking into and vandalizing a lab. (PETA
gp> didn't pay his fines as expressed min the article but they did pay his
gp> legal fees.)
gp> 3) Statements accussing PETA of a having "slush fund" of unreported
gp> contributions.. (Though the lastest investigations by the federal grand
gp> jury into PETA and possible racketeering charges may shed some light on
gp> the issue..

I doubt it.  If you've got any evidence concerning PETA, why 
don't you post it in lieu of presenting cheap innuendos concerning
"grand jury investigations".  BTW, it was my understanding that
grand jury investigations are supposed to be confidential affairs,
lest innocent parties be slandered by flimsy allegations.

In any case, your list of retractions is incomplete.  In 
particular, readers should be advised that McCabe also retracted 
the allegation that Pacheco had allowed conditions in the lab to 
deteriorate, as well as the inference that the photos depicting 
unsanitary conditions were not representative.  Perhaps I'm 
mistaken, but I vaguely recall Martin making similar accusations.  

rl> Do you have a degree in philosophy, Martin?  If not, please 
rl> explain how/why you feel qualified to call someone "bozo", simply 
rl> because he/she believes that animals should have rights.  

gp> I know I have nothing to do with this, and since Russell has not 
gp> answered any of my inquiries into his philosophical stance on 
gp> animal use and his actions in every day life (i.e.  How do you 
gp> justify your belief in animals rights if you continue to eat meat, 
gp> wear leather etc...)Ihad to answer.  

We discussed this at some length, Greg.  In fact, we did so in a 
thread wherein you mentioned that you'd prostitute yourself for
a good cause.  I'd be happy to run through it once again.  

Incidently, since you failed to reply to my last two articles, 
I'll be reposting them for your benefit in a few moments.  

gp>  Russell I have no degree in philosophy and I do not base my opinions of
gp>  someone based soly on their belief (or non-belief) in animal rights.
gp>  But, I do feel confident in saying that YOU are a bozo.  You bounce
gp>  around from thread to thread spouting your beliefs and or philosophy on
gp>  animal rights.   And whenever cornered or asked for clarification
gp>  you delete lines and hope that the question is forgotten, or redirect the
gp>  arguement.  You spend most of your time speaking half-truths, throwing
gp>  punches and then run back to your corner before the bell rings.
gp> 
gp> 
gp> Example 

================================================================
mh> [75% probability that Russell will continue to ignore requests to provide
mh> more info about the LSU "cat-shooting" experiment.]

rl> I'm not ignoring such requests, Martin. 

mh> Yes you are.  Greg Popken asked you twice if not thrice for 
mh> more info.  Since you claim to be well-informed about this case, 
mh> I too would like to see more info.  If you really hold 
mh> "intellectual standards" dear, it's time to put up or retract 
mh> your claims.  

rl> If you'd like to go ahead and do your own research, you'll find 
rl> references in the _Times Picayune_ newspaper, _The Washington Post_,
rl> _The New York Times_, _Science_, _JAMA_, _American Medical News_, 
rl> and _PCRM Update_.  Otherwise, you'll have to wait until I have
rl> time to keyboard the material.   
================================================================

gp> Thanks Russell, you've narrowed my search down from somewhere between
gp> 2,000,000 and 100,000,000 articles.  I have told twice I would do the leg
gp> work.  But, I do need as starting point.  You must know something of the
gp> project off the top of your head if you are so well informed about it to
gp> use it as an example.  Again A date, A name, A volume number, A title. I do
gp> need a starting point. 

As I mentioned previously, I'm going to provide a half-dozen articles
(with complete text), when I have an opportunity to keyboard them. 
Meanwhile, you can wait, or, you can learn to use the library.  

gp> ...
gp> Are you *really* suggesting that scientists who publish many papers 
gp> are "mediocre," while those who publish few are "excellent?" 

Not at all.  I'm suggesting that it's _STUPID_ to gauge the
merits of a scholar or scientist by the sheer number of his 
publications.  To back up my point, I'll refer readers (once 
again) to _Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls 
of Science_, by William Broad and Nicholas Wade, which explores 
this point in some depth. 

[redundant and/or personal questions deleted]

rl> If you think it's reasonable to concentrate on the personal lives
rl> of your opponents, I'd be happy to prepare some personal questions
rl> for you to answer, Martin.   Would that please you?

gp> What in the hell is this Russell.  These are legitamate questions 
gp> concerning animal rights and past discussions.  I'm not even 
gp> going to try to compile my list of unanswered questions.  I'm 
gp> sure Martin doesn't have time to burn and I want to finish my 
gp> graduate work before I become eligible for social security.  I 
gp> don't know how he managed to compile his list.  
gp> 
gp> I'm truely sorry that I have to resort to this level in order to 
gp> get a point across.  This is a forum for the exchange of ideas in 
gp> an open, sincere, and "intellectual" manner.  My purpose in this 
gp> forum is not to get into shouting matches and name calling.  I 
gp> like many others here feel that this is an important issue in our 
gp> society.  Important enough to take time out of our schedules in 
gp> order to delve into the issue in hopes of gaining a better 
gp> understanding of all sides of the issue.  In those lines I am 
gp> interested in and attempt to present information based on fact.  
gp> In addition, I do not intentionally skirt issues I find difficult 
gp> to answer.  

Martin's questions weren't difficult to answer.  Some of them were
irrelevant (ie asking about my "major"), and some were redundant (ie
asking me what experiments I would "allow").

If there are some points that you really do want me to clarify, I'd
be happy to do so, but kindly confine yourself to the questions that
you consider truly meaningful.  

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