From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Quibbling.  Was: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:54:08 GMT

From article <mhulsey-311292110559@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> In article <C03BxC.H6w@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>> 
>>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:
> 
> I may have left some of your recent questions unanswered due to technical
> problems.  I have never intentionally dodged any of your questions for
> numerous times over several weeks.  Please give me the opportunity to
> answer them again.  Please answer my questions.

I'll be happy to answer any pertinent questions, assuming that the
topic suits my interest and I have sufficient time.  I'd suggest
that you make an effort to weed out your innuendos, your unfounded
conjectures, and other forms of crap, and try to formulate questions 
that are directly related to the current threads.

>> #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?
> 
> I believe that I have already admitted such, but my archives are faulty at
> this point.  Perhaps someone else can fill in the blanks here.  

I don't recall any such admission.  I do, however, recall a posting
in which you stated that all your questions were pertinent.  Why don't
you go ahead and answer the question since you apparently have plenty
of time?  BTW, please don't confuse "responses" with "answers". 

> I do
> remember asking you why you offered such a forthright and prompt response
> to this admittedly irrelevant question, then complained that you would not
> answer the remainder of the questions because they were irrelevant.  Don't
> you see the inconsistency here?  Did you or did you not choose to finally
> answer my questions? 

Do you recall the following exchange?
======================================================================
Message-ID <mhulsey-221292083956@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>:
mh> If this particular question was impertinent, why did it receive 
mh> the most prompt and straightforward answer ever recorded from you 
mh> on Usenet?  

rl> The answer is: it didn't.  You posed the question many times 
rl> before I finally decided to respond.  It's probable that I would 
rl> have neglected to respond had my work schedule been more hectic 
rl> on the day in question.  It would be foolish, but not atypical, 
rl> for you to infer that my eventual response confers some sort of 
rl> merit on your "unanswered questions".  
======================================================================

Unanswered question #3:  Why do you often repeat the same false statements
over and over again?

>> #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?
> 
> Call me stupid if you wish.  It does not change the fact that you cannot or
> will not answer my questions.

Most of your questions aren't particularly difficult and most of them
strike me as irrelevant to the major issues.   Do you recall the following
statement in which I attempted to help you make a distinction between
"evasion" and "disinterest"?

======================================================================
Do you understand the concept of a "killfile", Martin?   Usenet users
often use a "killfile" to skip over the postings of posters they
consider illogical or disagreeable.   Would the presence of a man's
name in someone's "killfile" lead us to conclude that his arguments
are irrefutable or compelling.  Probably not.
======================================================================

Unanswered questions #4 & #5:   

Would the presence of a man's name in someone's "killfile" lead 
us to conclude that his arguments are irrefutable or compelling?  
If not, isn't it possible that readers who choose not to reply
to a given set of questions may not be "evading" the questions,
but simply choosing not to waste their time responding to someone
else's stupidity?

>  
>>[...]
>> 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.  
> 
> The _Washington Post_ was partially correct here, but was swallowing PETA's
> misleading arguments by ignoring the remainder the the Appeals Court's
> opinion.  

How do you know, Martin?   Did you interview the reporter who wrote
the article?  

Unanswered questions #6 & 7: 

Are you one of those "fundamentalist" types who attempts to explain
important events in terms of "evil" influences?   If not, why did
you assume that PETA was responsible for the WP's statement that the
case against Taub had been dismissed on technical grounds?

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