From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: PETA in hot water
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 18:46:59 GMT

In article <BzHAEz.4xC@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
>[...]
> > The _Washington Post_ apparently relied on PETA for information rather 
> > than reading the opinion of the Appeals Court.  
> 
> How do you know?

Because it swallowed the big lie that PETA has put forth for a decade and
that you support today.  Namely, that Taub's conviction was overturned for
purely technical or jurisdictional reasons.

> > As I have said, the "jurisdictional technicality" was not the 
> > whole story.  My claim is corroborated by the reference that I 
> > gave.  Check it out.  
> 
> Let me get this straight.  You're saying that your claim has been
> corroborated by your reference, namely the CFAAR newsletter 4(1).
> Would you mind telling us more about the "CFAAR" so that we can
> judge the credibility of its legal opinions?

One need not be a lawyer to read the Appeals Court opinion and discover
that it directly addressed Taub's claims that he did not mistreat his
monkeys.

The reference I gave indicates that ten lawyers with which Taub has
conferred unanimously agree that the Appeals court's opinion is "far from a
technicality." 

>The reason I'm
> asking, BTW, is that you apparently believe that the truth of
> an argument can be judged by the character of the speaker.

No, the reason that you continue asking this is because you apparently
believe that you can convince everyone that I said this despite the fact
that I have neither said nor implied any such thing.

>[...]
> > Being PRESIDENT of PETA should indicate a disinterest in animal research.
> > Don't you agree?
> 
> The PETA that you're referring to isn't the PETA that exists today,
> Martin.  As I recall, it had only twenty members or thereabouts, and
> the two principle figures had come together... not because of opposition
> to animal research, but because of their prior experiences working
> together at a dog pound.   It would be a mistake to take Pacheco's
> present views and project them onto a Pacheco who was some 13 years
> younger.

It is no mistake to say that, in typical fashion, you again avoided my
question.   

The fact remains that Pacheco lied to Taub about his intentions when he
applied for work in Taub's lab.

> You're free to speculate about Pacheco's private intentions, but
> it's important for all of us to remember that you're not an expert
> historian/psychologist/mind-reader.   In fact, it's fitting to
> point out that you have an "ABSYMAL PUBLICATIONS RECORD" [your caps]
> in all three of these fields.   Why don't you stick with facts 
> rather than resorting to suppositions and crystal-ball-gazing...
> like those ludicrous comments you've made about my alleged presence 
> in Athens, Georgia?

I'm not speculating about Pacheco's intentions.  It is clear that Pacheco
targeted Taub; he did not simply wander into Taub's lab by chance.  It is
also clear that Pacheco was more concerned about his "evidence" being
discredited than he was concerned for the welfare of Taub's monkeys.  These
are facts.

--
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