From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 23:17:37 GMT


Rich Young writes:
ry> ... my credentials are not at issue here.

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Hypocritical thinking is the issue, Rich.   

From article <1992Dec19.184945.14570@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
ry> Yes, and it would be wonderful if you'd stop doing it.

You've argued that Dr. Neil Barnard acted unethically because he 
publicly voiced his concerns about the hazards of milk 
consumption without having credentials in the field of nutrition 
per se.  Yet, you apparently don't have any qualms about dishing 
out nutrition advice to vegetarians in rec.food.veg while 
claiming to be the "voice of reason" [sic].  

No doubt you will continue to offer a set of special pleadings 
[aka excuses] to explain the apparent contradiction between the 
behavioral standard that you've set for Dr. Barnard as opposed
to the behavioral standard that you apply to yourself.  

> ...
ry> By the way, even Dr. Spock was a bit nonplussed at the PCRM press
ry> release.  He stated to the New York Times....[...]

rl> Would you mind posting a reference to this article?

ry> Sure.  As soon as you supply Martin, et. al., with references to
ry> cat shooting and beagle drowning as they've asked repeatedly.

rl> You have forfeited your right to timely responses to such requests
rl> by virtue of your consistent refusal to comply with similar requests
rl> from others.

As I explained previously, it was my intention to post, not only
the references, but entire articles... some of which were published
in the Times-Picayune, New Orleans CitiBusiness, and Gambit, sources
that are unlikely to be available in your local library.   
Unfortunately, I just haven't had enough time.  Do you think your
interests would be better served by the references alone... given
the fact that your limited resources would prevent you from testing
the veracity of my interpretations?

Be that as it may, I'm under no obligation to be an "Answer Man"
of sorts for every question that pops into the heads of my opponents.
I've already discussed the "cat shooting" topic at length on several 
occasions and each time I provided citations to the evidence.   I'll
be happy to discuss it again, in response to Greg Popken's most
recent request, but perhaps I won't bother supplying full text
articles.  

ry> Barnard is no more qualified to make dietary recommendations to
ry> the public than he is to perform liver transplants.

rl> Yet you seem to think that you're qualified to make dietary 
rl> recommendations to the readers of usenet.

ry> And so do you.  Are you any more qualified than I?  Usenet is a forum
ry> of opinions, sometimes supported by references to published works.

Ah yes, but your postings aren't merely "opinions", Rich.  
They're special products from the "voice of reason" himself.  In 
any case, you're in no position to determine whether Dr. Barnard is 
unqualified as you claim.  The fact that a man doesn't have a 
particular degree in a particular topic doesn't mean that he's 
unfamiliar with the material.   

I didn't attend the PCRM press conference, but I've read several 
articles on milk consumption in PCRM's journal and those articles 
were amply footnoted.  Do you know whether or not PCRM 
distributed handouts to the press containing pointers to the 
literature?  

rl> And not ordinary
rl> recommendations, mind you, but special recommendations from
rl> the "voice of reason" himself.   Let's hope you don't decide
rl> to repair any faulty mitral valves or perform liver transplants.

ry> We're still waiting for you to make some cogent statement regarding
ry> the relationship of claims of reasonableness to implications of
ry> expertise.  I doubt that even YOUR facile mind can do more than
ry> attempt a distraction...kind of like the one you just tried above,
ry> as a matter of fact.

I am focusing on the issue, Rich.  And the issue is the hypocrisy 
of folks who would belittle the statements of a medical doctor on 
a vital nutritional issue, by appeals to his authority, while 
applauding historical claims about the nazi mindset that were presented 
in a journal that has *nothing* whatsoever to do with either political
history or the history of ideas.

ry> As an aside, I'd like to make the following observation: in a 
ry> past posting, I made a comment which attributed you with high, if 
ry> wasted, intelligence;  I no longer believe this to be true.  I 
ry> think you are very CLEVER, but not overwhelmingly intelligent.  
ry> Please note that this is not meant as an attack, but merely a 
ry> correction to a previous statement.  

rl> You're not only a "voice of reason" when it comes to nutritional
rl> advice, but you're also an expert on intelligence.  How convenient.
rl>
rl> A few months ago one of the readers of sci.med.nutrition
rl> with an interest in breast-feeding posted references to several 
rl> scientific articles suggesting that breast-feeding raises the 
rl> intelligence of infants.  Weren't you the guy who disputed 
rl> the evidence by claiming to be one of three, bottle-fed brothers 
rl> all of whom had IQ's over 150?

ry> As usual, you are in error.  I disputed no evidence with such a
ry> claim.

You may be right.  I'm certainly not in a position to judge your 
motives.  At the time, however, it sounded to me as though you 
were disputing the evidence, and you most certainly did make a 
point of claiming that you and your brothers all had IQ's above 
150... which brings me to the question that you edited from your 
last posting.  

rl> Is do-it-yourself intelligence testing one of your many hobbies 
rl> perhaps?   

I've noticed that you occasionally make references to the 
intelligence of your opponents while attempting to resolve 
various arguments.  Apart from your nutritional expertise, do 
you also consider yourself to be the "voice of reason" when it 
comes to IQ testing?  

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