HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hulsey/Lawrence Credentials
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:01:32 GMT

From article <mhulsey-141292084954@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> I thank Dr. Hoskins for attempting to end this silly quarrel.  For the
> benefit of those who are curious, I e-mailed my credentials to Dr. Hoskins
> twice.  It was Russell who failed to provide his.  It is Russell who
> persists in this point, for I would have dropped it long ago.  I will drop
> it now if Russell will let me.

Suits me, Martin.  

In the future, I hope that you'll focus on the facts and arguments 
presented by men and women like Neil Barnard (MD) in lieu of demeaning
yourself by appeals to their authority.

> As usual, Russell will want to have the last word on this matter.  I hope
> that his last word will eliminate everyone's suspicion that he has no
> degree.  The "ivy-league" institution of which he boasts probably proved
> too much for him, for he couldn't evade his professor's questions as he
> evades questions posed here.

Would you mind citing a passage where I made such a "boast"?  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 19:00:27 GMT

From article <1992Dec13.173709.4716@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
> In article <Bz46GK.2Ho@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>
>>> The only person whose credentials I questioned was Dr. Neal Barnard.  I do
>>> not consider him an opponent, although I do wish that he had the
>>> inclination to become an opponent by appearing here and defending his
>>> pseudo-physician's group.  
>>
>>So you say.  Yet you haven't explained how/why you consider yourself
>>qualified to question Dr. Barnard's credentials.  Do you have a degree
>>in medicine, BTW?
> 
> Russell, would the opinion of an M.D. be sufficient to put into question
> Dr. Barnard's credentials as a scientist?

Let me try to make it simple for you, Greg.    Can the truth or falsity
of a statement be determined by appealing to the authority of the speaker?

As an example, can we determine the truth or falsity of your "nazi!" 
cries by examining your credentials as an historian?


-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:05:40 GMT

In article <Bz9q9p.Azr@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
>[...]
> 
> Thanks for pointing out that it's fallacious to assume that a given
> speaker favors "animal rights" simply because he's opposed to animal
> mistreatment.

Is it fallacious to deny that a given speaker supports animal "rights" when
they have proclaimed that they do?

> mh> There is no evidence that we must give "rights" to animals in order to
> mh> provide for their welfare or humane treatment.  
> 
> Yet, you'd have us believe that the nazis were "animal rights" advocates
> because they were allegedly opposed to vivisection, as practiced in the
> 1930's.

Not at all.  I believe that the Nazis supported animal "rights" because
they proclaimed that they did.

Also, the Nazis were not "allegedly" opposed to vivisection.  They
*outlawed* vivisection.  Why don't you check out the Arluke & Sax article
that I cited?
 
> The practice of using terms like "animal rights" and "vivisection"
> ambiguously for the purpose of deceipt is called "equivocation", but 
> you already knew that.  Didn't you? 

Yep.  The practice of ignoring relevant questions is called "evasion."  You
wrote the book on that.  Didn't you?

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu                      Society for Neuroscience
Martin G. Hulsey                              National Rifle Association
Dept. Foods & Nutrition      Society for the Study of Ingestive Behavior
University of Ga.    North American Association for the Study of Obesity
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,talk.abortion
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and abortion (was Re: Speciesism)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:51:36 GMT

> = Mary Otto:
>> = Michael Loomis writes:

>>In my naive childhood days as a vegiefanatic, I would eat eggs and
>>explain that my eating of eggs was indicative of my support for abortion
>>rights.  I am now a vegie apostate, but I still think the killing of
>>human fetuses is a positive moral good on a planet overpopulated by homo
>>sapiens.

Me too. 

>Michael
>If you feel that way about the value of humans, why don't you make
>your own abortion retro-active and commit suicide?

Of course, Michael said human fetuses.  Not humans.  I guess you'll
apologize now that you see how bitchy you were.

Besides, David Rasmussen is already our Retroactive Abortion Poster
Dweeb.  I don't think Michael qualifies.  Doug Holtsinger looks like a
close fit, though.


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: Hitler (was "A rat is a pig is a.....")
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:42:42 GMT

In article <BzDKqD.22y@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> Not really.  Professional historians specialize in particular periods... 
>rl> like everybody else.  I doubt that *any* professional historians spend
>rl> a lot of time reading _Endocrinology_, much less historians who have
>rl> a joint interest in the nazi era as well as the animal rights movement.  
>rl> 
>rl> In time, I suspect the publication of these "nazi" claims in journals
>rl> like _Endocrinology_ will be regarded as far more interesting artifacts
>rl> that any alleged "animal rights" statements set forth by famous nazis.
>
>Martin Hulsey writes:
>mh> Let me get this straight Russell.  You say that professional historians
>mh> will not  spend a lot of time reading "nazi" claims in journals like
>mh> _Endocrinology_, yet, in time, they will regard them as "far more
>mh> interesting artifacts?"
>
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> Can you understand the difference between:
>rl> 
>rl> - a forum of historical study, and
>rl> - a focal point of historical study.
>
>From article <mhulsey-161292143921@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
>mh> Yes.  Can you explain how something can, in time, become a "far more
>mh> interesting artifact" without being read "a lot of time" by historians? 
>
>Historians with an interest in the nazi era don't share their 
>ideas in journals like Endocrinology, Martin.  In fact, such 
>journals might be the proverbial "last place" that an historian 
>would search if he were hoping to find credible historical 
>analysis.   
>
>On the other hand, an historian in the year 2010 who's exploring 
>anti-AR backlash in the early 90's won't have much difficulty 
>finding this article.  Nor will historians who have an interest 
>in the ideologies of scientists.  This article wll speak volumes, 
>not about animal rights philosophies or nazi philosophies, but 
>about the mindsets of ideologues who won't hesitate to spend 
>their time studying a piece of "historical" analysis presented in 
>_Endocrinology_, yet would hesitant to take the time to study the 
>works of Singer or Regan or Rollin, et al.  
>
>-- 
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ


-- 
The opinions expressed here are my own.  **   Knowledge goes on forever! 
Which is to say they belong to me.       **   Spelling stops at the 
And these opinions, which belong to me,  **   end of the page.
are mine.                                *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: The Two Faces of Ayn Rand
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:49:03 GMT

pn> Peter Nelson
gs> Gary Strand

  [Peter creates a scenario in which he commits the perfect murder so he can
   guarantee a healthy inheritance.]

pn> Other than abstract ethical considerations, why shouldn't I carry it out?

gs> Easy answer: You might get caught. I've yet to hear (or read) of a "per-
    fect" murder.

pn> Everything we do in life requires some assessment of the risks but in my
    story I have assessed the risks and decided that they are small.  

  So, go for it. I have no way to tell you that murdering your aunt is wrong.
  If you think you can get away with it, be my guest.

  Now, can *you* tell us why I shouldn't murder *you*, if I think I can get
  away with it? Even if there's no benefit to me? Eliminate Objectivism and
  it's rule against initiation of force, and eliminate pragmatism (since I
  cannot be caught), and upon what grounds do you use to object to being kil-
  led?

  Trust me, you can't toss out every ethical theory that has a flaw and expect
  others to take you seriously. So far, I don't see how your postivistically
  logical pragmatism keeps you from killing people. Perhaps we do need abstract
  ethical considerations, hmmmm?

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Economics and the Dart Board
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 08:04:09 GMT

In article <Bz9oq7.Dp2@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
}In article <palmer.724088972@news.larc.nasa.gov> palmer@icat.larc.nasa.gov (Michael T. Palmer) writes:
}>starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
}>
}>>In article <1992Dec10.210318.21431@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
}>>}As evidence I refer you to the "Clinton recovery", which
}>>}seems to be taking place only because Clinton was elected 
}>>}(actually, because Clinton was _likely_ to be elected, at
}>>}first).
}>
}>>Nope.  It's caused by Greenspan's credit expansion at the Fed, a.k.a.,
}>>inflation.
}                                                    
}  So which is it?  How do we know those are the only two 
}  possibilities?  If it was the Fed expansion then how do we 
}  explain that in August, after a dozen or so Fed cuts, the 
}  M2 actually went *down*?   Inflation is defined as an increase
}  in the money supply, so a falling M2 rules this out and more-
}  over a falling M2 sure isn't predicted by any theory that's been
}  presented here.

While I'll leave it to actual economists to judge the merit of explaining
the drop of M2, M1 has been going up steadily and quite a bit for quite a
while now.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:5388 talk.philosophy.misc:2902 sci.lang:8392
From: hubey@pilot.njin.net (Hubey)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,sci.lang
Subject: Re: Logic
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:43:18 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.theory
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <Bz3uE7.10t@knot.ccs.queensu.ca> hausner@qucis.queensu.ca (Alejo Hausner) writes:

> This happens in the physical sciences too.  I have heard many
> accounts of physicists and mathematicians who work hard on a
> problem, then take a break, and the answer "appears" to them.
> They know it's true.  Of course the scientific community won't


No need to study physics. Haven't you ever found yourself
searching your mind desperately for a word to complete your
sentence?  This has happened to me a few times when giving
lectures. I start off, speak a couple of sentences, then in
one of the sentences, all of a sudden, I find myself looking
for a word to complete the sentence. The word exists but 
I can't find it.  OR sometimes the word doesn`t exist so it means
that I should have started off the sentence in a different way.

Either way it seems to imply to me that the meaning of what I
want to say is there in my brain, and exists apart from words.
-- 

	mark	


   hubey@pilot.njin.net                   hubey@apollo.montclair.edu
 ...!rutgers!pilot!hubey                  hubey@logos.montclair.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:5478 alt.politics.libertarian:2661
From: pas@anchor.unh.edu (Paul A Sand)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: The Two Faces of Ayn Rand
Date: 14 Dec 1992 21:29:50 GMT
Organization: University of New Hampshire
NNTP-Posting-Host: anchor.unh.edu

pn: Peter Nelson

pn: It's actually sort of an interesting philosophical question: Suppose
    there WAS a solid science of psychology and suppose it discovered
    that it was only the belief in nonsense systems of knowledge
    (religion or various philosophic ethical systems) that prevented
    society from degenerating into mayhem. 

If that were the case, that would be real powerful evidence that 
the ethical system *wasn't* nonsense. 
-- 
-- Paul A. Sand           | I was going to buy a copy of _The Power of
-- Univ. of New Hampshire | Positive Thinking_ and then I thought: What
-- pas@kepler.unh.edu     | the hell good would that do?
			  |     (Ronnie Shakes)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,sci.lang
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Logic
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:45:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: mydog in exile

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| |> }| }Logic is _not_ language?  Can you give me an example of 
| |> }| }non-linguistic logic?  No words, numbers, ideograms,
| |> }| }syntax?  What happened to the _logos_?

pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:
| Yes.  The Zen koan system is essentially such a system.  Also, 
| the Buddha's last and most powerful transimissions were alleged
| to have been given in silence.

Actually, koans _are_ linguistic, and not only that, they're
rather sophisticated plays on an underlying logical structure.
A koan like "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" has no
kick unless you have already constructed a rather complex
idea about clapping in your mind.

Gautama's transmissions of intuitive or unitive knowledge
are, to me, non-logical; but I suppose we are reaching the
point where we have to ask what we mean by "logic", anyway.

I disagree, by the way, that you cannot receive truth
through language (if that's what was meant).  For one 
thing, you can receive the experience of receiving the
symbols, usually words, that I transmit, even if they are
nonsense.  Moreover, they might not be nonsense; I might
be reading a poem or the Pythagorean Theorem, which
might bring about an undeniable aesthetic experience,
or I might tell a story which corresponded to your 
own experience and became part of it.

What I think one cannot do through symbols (words or
otherwise) is determine, with no uncertainty, truths
about what we usually call the world, except for that
subset of the world which is our personal, immedi-
ate experience or consciousness. 
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: The Two Faces of Ayn Rand
Reply-To: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:21:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.164903.17224@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>  Trust me, you can't toss out every ethical theory that has a flaw and expect
>  others to take you seriously. So far, I don't see how your postivistically
>  logical pragmatism keeps you from killing people. Perhaps we do need abstract
>  ethical considerations, hmmmm?
>
>--
>Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
>strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF


I don't think Peter is criticizing Objectivist ethics in itself. What he is
criticizing is the statement that Objectivist ethics is 'absolute', or
'provable'. Some have stated that Rand never made this claim, only the claim
that Objectivist ethics is superior by virtue of being based on reason.

In any event, it seems to me that Peter's criticism is both true and
trivial. One can accept Objectivist ethics without requiring that it
be 'true' or 'provable' in some absolute sense (as, for example, statements
about the physical world may be provable, or at least falsifiable).



Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.philosophy.misc,sci.lang
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Logic
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 10:30:55 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.131827.29116@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
}That's what I meant.  I didn't mean that logic was supposed
}by Objectivists to produce truth _ex_nihilo_, but that it was
}a kind of machine like a sausage machine: you put various
}things in it, turn the crank, and get a string of truths.

Too mechanistic a metaphor for me.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Death of America
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 03:05:38 GMT

Well, for crying out loud.  Peter got mad when Tim called him
arbitrary and subjective.  Now he writes:

>  I'm not making them as an economist, I'm making an arbitrary 
>  subjective judgement. 

>  It just means that we have to respect the limits on our
>  pronouncements: we cannot claim they represent great, transcendent
>  truths.    It does not require a great deal of intelligence to 
>  grasp such distinctions.

Indeed it does not.  And it shouldn't require too much more to
recognize that there does exist a legitimate body of practical
knowledge which can not be written down in the kind of precise
and formal way that physical sciences can.

There is a big middle ground between 'arbitrary and subjective' and
'science'.

--Jimbo


Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Boycott)
Subject: Re: Death of America 3
Summary:  Hoo-Doo Economics -- the belief that one can "invest" away debt
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords:  Risky Business
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 20:03:00 GMT

In article <1gtje2INNpqj@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes...
> 
>In a previous article, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) says:
> 
>>In article <1gr1liINNdh1@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>>
>>  The idea that you can predict such things is an even BIGGER 
>>  faith-based presumption!
> 
>    The idea that the Federal government can continue on it's present
>     course is an even BIGGER presumption. :)

Peter Polyanna is probably preppin 
for the Tahiti trip. 

So I reckon RealEkonomic 
is farthest from his faith.

>>>  A "recession" that defies understanding.  
>>
>>   In one sense, *all* recessions defy understanding, since there's
>
>       I've read Thurow.  Now, I suggest to YOU, read Batra, Kindleberger,
>       Marx, and Ress-Mogg.  No, I take it back.  I don't suggest this.

Ugg, that would spoil a vacation.

-= Too bad the NAFTA document ain't out yet =-

Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Economics and the Dart Board
Reply-To: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:04:11 GMT

In article <palmer.724088972@news.larc.nasa.gov> palmer@icat.larc.nasa.gov (Michael T. Palmer) writes:
>starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec10.210318.21431@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>>}As evidence I refer you to the "Clinton recovery", which
>>}seems to be taking place only because Clinton was elected 
>>}(actually, because Clinton was _likely_ to be elected, at
>>}first).
>
>>Nope.  It's caused by Greenspan's credit expansion at the Fed, a.k.a.,
>>inflation.
>
>Exactly.  I was wondering how long it would take the Democrats to start
>taking credit for the better economic news coming out now... 


Which Democrats have 'taken credit' for the 'better economic news'?


>Michael T. Palmer, M/S 152, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian
From: asp+@cs.cmu.edu (James Aspnes)
Subject: Re: arguments about arguments
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 03:24:29 GMT

In article <Bz2xGn.5L1@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>If you say: "The following is a true abstract argument.  All abstract 
>arguments are false.".  You CANNOT be right.  It is logically impossible, and
>there is certainly no evidence of this (in fact, evidence is exactly
>what this theory says that one can never find).

I agree.  But that's not what I'm saying.  Since you refuse to even contemplate
an analytic/synthetic distinction I'm not sure I can express what I'm saying in
your language (you can read what I'm saying in my language in the post you
are responding to).

However, since you're a big fan of logical impossibility, I'd be interested in
how you handle the following argument:

   "This sentence is false, and I am not the Pope."

Notice that it is logically impossible for this sentence to be true, and there
is certainly no evidence for it (indeed, it's not clear what _would_ be
evidence for it).  I'll leave it to you to work out the logical consequences
of the sentence being false.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:5435 talk.politics.misc:64058 alt.conspiracy:13103
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: The Two Faces of Ayn Rand
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 06:05:02 GMT

In article <Bz3oMF.9Ay@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
}In article <otto-101292175944@hotline.cc.fsu.edu> otto@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (John G. Otto) writes:
}   Randianism doesn't
}   say it's wrong to initiate force *in certain contexts*; it says
}   its always wrong to initiate force.

Reference, please?


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.postmodern,alt.society.anarchy,alt.cyberpunk,alt.conspiracy