From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:05:18 GMT


Martin Hulsey writes:
mh> As I have responded repeatedly, you are in no position to 
mh> question my credentials, because you have NONE yourself.  

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> What sort of credentials must a person have in order to point out
rl> that you have a set of double-standards?

From article <mhulsey-201192093840@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
mh> Another pagan dance.  If you have evidence for a double-standard 
mh> on my part, let's see it.  Either way, stop questioning my credentials.

I'd suggest that you begin to focus on the facts and rational 
arguments presented by your opponents, in lieu of addressing what 
you perceive to be their lack of credentials/honesty/intelligence 
and various other personality attributes (ie "bozos").  
Meanwhile, I'm going to continue to point out that you don't have 
a medical degree, and hence should think twice about criticizing 
MD's.  And that you don't have a degree in philosophy, and hence, 
should refrain from criticizing philosophers.  And that you're 
not a registered dietitian, and hence, should refrain from 
commenting on the safety of milk, meat, etc.  

In truth, Martin, I'm happy to hear your comments on these
topics, provided that you cease and desist from expecting your
opponents to meet a higher set of standards than you might be
able or willing to apply to your own arguments.

> ...
mh> You do have a right to your opinion, but you are unqualified to 
mh> categorize anyone's research as "mediocre, redundant garbage." 

And you're unqualified to express such philosophical opinions, Martin,
since you're unable to distinguish an ad hominem fallacy from a
rational argument.

Incidently, I'm still waiting to see your full apologies concerning 
your misuse of groundless material from the (now retracted) McCabe
article that had been published by the (now apologetic) _Washingtonian_
magazine.  In retrospect, I'm sure you realize that McCabe was
"unqualified" to criticize the animal rights movement.

> ...
mh> If Heimlich had published his first reference well before the other
mh> researcher proposed her/his beagle experiment, I would concur that the
mh> beagle experiment was redundant and unnecessary.  Under those conditions, I
mh> would not support that experiment.  If the researcher did not first verify
mh> that the Heimlich manuver had not been sucessfully applied to drowning
mh> humans before applying for IACUC approval, then it would be a clear
mh> violation of the AWA.

rl> Would you mind furnishing some evidence to support this last statement?
rl> In particular, I'd like to know when/how the rules that you're citing
rl> came into being.

mh> I'm not certain which revision of the AWA introduced this 
mh> measure, but I have to indicate how (i.e., what database I 
mh> searched) I determined that the research projects I propose are 
mh> not duplicative.  I will see if I can get more accurate info from 
mh> my IACUC.  

I'm looking forward to your response. 

rl> Please explain how/why your conclusions concerning Heimlich's 
rl> opposition would depend, or not depend, on your lack of 
rl> credentials in emergency medicine.  

mh> Here you go again.  This is not a question of expertise in 
mh> "emergency medicine," but rather chronology.  As I said above, if 
mh> Heimlich published (rather than submitted) his 1981 paper prior 
mh> to the other researcher's "early 1980's" application, he would be 
mh> justified in his objection...  

Right.  I agree.  In some cases it only takes a logical 
mind... rather than credentials in the particular field, to spot 
the weaknesses in a particular program of research.

mh> You still haven't provided a more specific date that would allow 
mh> us to discern this critical point.  Until you do, you are not 
mh> really justified in calling the experiment useless, redundant or 
mh> unnecessary.  

You're confused.   Heimlich's the individual who stated that the
proposed program was useless.  And Heimlich was both the inventor 
of the maneuver as well as the author of several dozen articles in 
the related field.  Was Heimlich qualified to criticize the 
experiments?

> ...
rl> Do you have a degree in philosophy, Martin?  If not, please 
rl> explain how/why you feel qualified to call someone "bozo", simply 
rl> because he/she believes that animals should have rights.  

mh> It's just my opinion, Russell.  You, and others, may take it for 
mh> what it is worth. 

My personal opinion is that you have a lot to contribute to this
newsgroup, but you also have a lot to learn as well.   It seems to
me that your time would be better spent if you'd concentrate on
sharing specific ideas on specific issues in lieu of attempting
to prove that your opponents are suffering from some sort of
intellectual or moral weakness.

...
mh> [75% probability that Russell will continue to ignore requests to provide
mh> more info about the LSU "cat-shooting" experiment.]

rl> I'm not ignoring such requests, Martin. 

mh> Yes you are.  Greg Popken asked you twice if not thrice for 
mh> more info.  Since you claim to be well-informed about this case, 
mh> I too would like to see more info.  If you really hold 
mh> "intellectual standards" dear, it's time to put up or retract 
mh> your claims.  

If you'd like to go ahead and do your own research, you'll find 
references in the _Times Picayune_ newspaper, _The Washington Post_,
_The New York Times_, _Science_, _JAMA_, _American Medical News_, 
and _PCRM Update_.  Otherwise, you'll have to wait until I have
time to keyboard the materials.   

mh> Here is a list of questions that I have asked you previously, 
mh> and obtained no reply...  [personal questions deleted]

If you think it's reasonable to concentrate on the personal lives
of your opponents, I'd be happy to prepare some personal questions
for you to answer, Martin.   Would that please you?

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