From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 06:23:20 GMT

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

From article <1992Dec22.023342.6554@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
ry> 1. Please detail for us the credentials of Dr. Neal Barnard which
ry> qualify him to speak with authority on the subject of
ry> nutrition, or more specifically, make recommendations to
ry> the press regarding the role milk should play in the human
ry> diet.

You're asking me to make a contribution to an argument that I 
regard as fallacious...  namely the notion that a man's 
statements should be accepted or discarded on the basis of his 
authority.  

I deeply suspect that you would reject your own form of argumentation
if it were levied against you.  Let's put my suspicion to the test,
once again:

Please detail the credentials of Rich Young that qualify him to 
represent himself as the "voice of reason" while dishing out 
largely unwanted nutrition "advice" to the readers of rec.food.veg?

ry> 2. Please explain for us precisely how you manage to transmogrify
ry> a claim of reasonableness to a claim, or even an implication,
ry> of expertise.

This doesn't make sense.  Please elaborate.

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

ry> No doubt.  I never claimed to be an expert; I only claimed to be
ry> reasonable.  Even you don't dispute that, so why do you continue
ry> to flog this proverbial "dead horse?"

It's not a dead horse, Rich. 

Did Neal Barnard claim to be "an expert"?  Did he claim to be
the "voice of reason"?  Or, did he simply state his opinions while 
supporting them with facts and rational arguments?  

I truly doubt that he made self-aggrandizing claims of any
kind, but even if he did, I'd be truly surprised if they come
anywhere close to your "voice of reason" pretense.

====================================================================
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.
====================================================================

ry> I do wish you'd fix that editor, or proofread your postings.  YOU
ry> didn't write the preceding two-plus lines...I did.

My apologies.  The fault lies in a program that massages text, and
I've temporarily misplaced the source somewhere in a stack of nine-
track tapes.  I do proof-read, but errors occasionally slip by.

ry> ...
ry> No indeed, but when he tells the world at large that they need to
ry> change their dietary habits, he'd better be prepared to show that
ry> he knows what he's talking about.

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

ry> Do you?

No, I don't.  However, I do know that a three page article on dairy
products that was recently published in PCRM's journal was accompanied
by twenty-eight footnotes.  It would truly surprise me if PCRM had
failed to hand out references at their recent press conference on
milk.

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

ry> Does it matter?  Or is this a gray area?

Was it a grey area when you wrote the following passage?

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

ry> Huh?  When, exactly, DID you stop molesting your neighbor's little
ry> boy?

My question was straightforward, Rich:  Would your title as the
"voice of reason" qualify you to judge even your own intelligence,
much less the intelligence of folks whom you hardly know?

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