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: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:02:21 GMT

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.

The legal record indicates that all charges relating to the "conditions" of
Taub's monkeys were dismissed before the Appeal's Court rendered its
decision.  Gerone's statement is inconsistent with court testimony, but it
is consistent with Pacheco's unsupported account of events.  Again,
Gerone's "hands-on" experience with the monkeys months after the fact has
no bearing on the events surrounding Taub's indictment and exhonoration. 
You are appealing to Gerone's authority in an area where he has none.

>[...]
> Once again, thanks for telling us what people ought to think and say,
> but if he's going to tell the whole truth, don't you think he should
> point out that the final case against Taub was dismissed on a legal
> technicality?

Again, what you are "pointing out" is not "the whole truth," but a
misleading synopsis of the Appeals Court's opinion.

>[...]
> > 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.

> 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.
 
> > 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 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.  Taub's assertions are backed by the court
testimony of seven individuals.  Pacheco's assertions are refuted by these
seven people.  If you question Taub's supported assertions, you should also
question Pacheco's unsupported assertions.

> 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.

> >> 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.
 
> Unanswered question #9:
> 
> Is it reasonable for a "scientist" to make unsupported statements about
> the background, motives, intellectual resources, etc, of unknown individuals?

No. I refer you to the answer I gave in another post.
 
>[...]
> > 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. 

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

Be specific.

>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. 

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