From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: PETA in hot water
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:50:08 GMT

From article <mhulsey-161292103220@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> In article <BzBnHz.Jp@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>>[..]
>> You seem to be ignoring the historical facts.  Taub's conviction 
>> wasn't overturned on its evidential merits.  It was overturned when 
>> the Maryland state appeals court ruled that Maryland's anti-cruelty 
>> statutes didn't apply to federally financed animal experiments.  
> 
> I am ignoring nothing.  The point, which you have not refuted, was that the
> conviction was not overturned on technical grounds unrelated to Taub's
> charges, as PETA has claimed for a decade. The appelate court's decision
> addressed issues that support Taub's claim that he did not treat his
> monkeys in a cruel fashion.

I've truly enjoyed your hand waving demonstrations, but the fact 
remains that the Maryland State Court of Appeals overturned 
Taub's conviction when it ruled that state anti-cruelty 
statutes don't apply to federally financed animal experiments.

[various legal arguments deleted]

Are you an attorney, Martin?  The reason I'm asking this question is
that you've led us to believe that medical doctors aren't 
qualified to publicly offer their opinions on nutritional 
matters, yet for some strange reason you seem to think that a PhD in 
"nutrition science" has qualified you to expound your opinions in 
such diverse areas as law, medicine, history, etc, etc.  How
come?  

>> Did HHS ever reinstate Taub's funding?
> 
> No, but their failure to reinstate the grant does not indicate wrongdoing
> on Taub's part...  

So you say.

>> Where did you get your law degree, Martin?  It's logically irrelevant, 
>> of course, whether you have a law degree or no, but in view of the 
>> fact that you're a scientist who respects intellectual honesty, it's 
>> only fitting for you to observe the same standards (vis-a-vis 
>> credentials) that you expect your opponents to meet.  
> 
> I have no law degree, and yes, it is irrelevant.

Then perhaps it's irrelevant whether or not Neil Barnard has a degree
in "nutrition science".

> I don't see why you continue this ridiculous line of argument.  You persist
> in suggesting that I am "intellectually dishonest," yet you have no proof. 
> If anyone here is intellectually dishonest, it is you.  You continue to
> evade my questions.  You expect me to post my credentials, yet refuse to
> post yours.

I'm merely asking you to meet the same standards that you apply to
others.  Surely you don't wish to be a hypocrite, Martin.

>> --Footnote--
>> 
>> One of PETA's most outspoken critics is Peter Gerone, the director of 
>> the Delta Regional Primate Center here in Louisiana.  Here's what he 
>> told a Washington Post reporter who re-investigated the Silver Spring 
>> Monkey case in 1991: 
>> 
>>     "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 Carlson, Peter.  "The Great Silver Spring Monkey Debate".
>> The Washington Post, February 24, 1991.]
> 
> Gerone apparently accepts Pacheco's account of events.  I do not.  I do
> agree that the incident has heightened awareness on both sides of the
> issue.

Do you think you're better informed on such matters than the director
of the Delta Regional Primate Center?   In deference to your proof-by-
credentials line of reasoning, are your credentials better than
Gerone's?   Have you had any hands-on experience with the Silver
Spring Monkeys, BTW?   

> There was a deterioration of animal care in Taub's lab in the three-week
> period prior to the police raid, but I question that Taub was at fault.

Who was at fault, Martin?

> Two animal caretakers in Taub's lab previously had near perfect work
> attendance records.  During Taub's vacation, they each missed 7 of 15
> workdays, including three consecutive days before the police raid.  I
> cannot claim that someone bribed or otherwise convinced them to forsake
> their duties, but it is obvious that their sudden absences did not occur by
> chance alone.

Amazing.

I cannot claim that you're a paid employee of the National 
Association for Biomedical Research, but it's obvious that your 
innuendos, your hypocritical intellectual standards, your 
name-calling, etc, etc may not be accidental.  

> When Taub left for a three-week vacation in 1981, he thought that his
> laboratory and animals were in good hands.  After all, in addition to the
> normal staff of two animal caretakers, there was Alex Pacheco.  Pacheco
> falsely represented himself as a person interested in learning about
> research.  Taub's only fault was trusting Pacheco.

So you say.  Have you got any proof?

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