From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:05:35 GMT

From article <mhulsey-301292105232@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> I am curious whether "Russell Claus" *finally* brought me a set of answers
> to my "unanswered questions."  I've been a good boy.  If they were, by some
> chance, answered, can someone help me out by reposting or e-mailing them to
> me?

If/when you convince me that this line of reasoning has merit, I 
suppose I'll have to take a few minutes to prepare a long list of 
"unanswered Martin Hulsey questions".  Here are two questions to 
get us started:

#1:  Are you finally willing to admit that your "unanswered questions" 
     about my alleged presence at a meeting in Athens, Georgia, were
     irrelevant to the major issues at hand?   If so, why did you
     repeatedly insist that you were asking pertinent questions?

#2:  Is it a mark of reason, or mere stupidity, when a debater chooses to
     focus on the alleged personality attributes of his opponents, rather 
     than addressing the relevant facts and arguments?

> ...
> I am unable to repost Russell's question precisely, but it involved the
> lawyers that Taub consulted regarding his exhoneration.  Russell wanted to
> know about the ten lawyers who, as indicated in the CFAAR reference I gave,
> unanimously indicated to Taub that the opinion of the appeals court was
> more than a technicality.  Two of these lawyers, Edgar Brenner and James
> Miller, were part of his defense team.  The other eight were not.  Taub was
> understandably reluctant to release their names without first getting
> permission from them.  I'm sure that Russell will object, but that is too
> bad.

You've outdone yourself, Martin.  I've come to expect your appeals to 
authority, but this new appeal to _nameless_ authorities hits a new 
lowpoint.  

> Whether or not Taub's conviction was overturned on a jurisdictional
> technicality is a matter of legal opinion and not fact.  Some lawyers might
> disagree on this grey area, but every lawyer that Taub has consulted has
> indicated that the opinion of the Maryland Appeals Court is more than a
> technicality. 

The opinion that matters is the opinion of the Maryland Appeals 
Court...  not "some lawyers".  According to the Washington Post [not 
just PETA], Taub's conviction was overturned when the Court ruled 
that state animal cruelty laws did not apply to federally funded 
animal experiments.  

> PETA is clearly unjustified in the position they have maintained 
> as factual.  It is simply a matter of trying to turn a decisive 
> legal defeat into a PR victory.  

So you say.  

> ...
> I am not sure how historians will treat this incident.  The PETA public
> relations machine has Taub convicted in the minds of many, even among those
> who otherwise support animal research.  We must keep in mind that Taub was
> fully exhonorated of all charges.  Despite being targeted and set up by
> PETA co-founder Alex Pacheco, it has not been proven in any forum that Dr.
> Edward Taub mistreated his monkeys.

Isn't the concept of "mistreatment" a matter of opinion?   

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