You two are wasting your time with Dreck (that's the
more widely used handle for 'Derek'; Dreck means
'filth' in German.)  The guy is a somewhat clever but
thoroughly unserious and uneducated jerk.  I can't
emphasize enough the dialogue-killing effect that his
lack of education has.

Dreck was a car mechanic in Great Britain until he
wrecked his back.  He wrecked it trying to show off how
manly he was, by lifting a small engine out of a car by
hand.  He now is a thorough-going layabout.  Dreck has
never studied logic or Latin, but that doesn't prevent
him from engaging in an orgy of cut-and-paste, spewing
'non causa pro causa' and 'argumentum ad dreckum' and
heretofore unknown (to him) words like 'expurgate'.
Car mechanics don't talk or write like that, and in
fact, no one with an ounce of perspective writes like
that in a usenet group unless it's one expressly
concerned with logic.

Dreck claims to be a believer in and defender of
"animal rights", but he is utterly unfamiliar with the
philosophical basis for it, and in fact has learned
whatever he knows of it by sucking up to some "animal
rights activists" who used to participate here, and who
fled in large part because of the effect Dreck has had
in lowering the quality of debate.

Dreck's favorite tactic is that of the typical
uninformed dilettante:  repetitive cut-and-paste of
crap he doesn't really understand.  You rightly cut it
out in your reply as uninformative gas, and Dreck just
repastes it back in.  You're witnessing it in this
travesty of a debate over initial drugs testing on animals.

That argument is a classic for revealing Dreck's utter
lack of understanding of methodology and implication,
his conscious misinterpretation and distortion of facts
and meaning, and his inability to understand *real*
logic.  For example, testing on animals is NOT intended
to establish overall safety of a new drug compound; it
is intended to demonstrate basic biological activity of
the compound, and a minimal level of safety for the
compound to begin human clinical trials.  However,
because some 80% of drug compounds that make it past
animal testing are then rejected at some point during
the human clinical trials, Dreck misinterprets that as
a "failure" of animal testing.  He *knows* that passing
animal testing is neither intended to be nor
interpreted as being a guarantee of successfully
passing the human clinical trials, but he sleazily
pretends it is supposed to be such a guarantee, and
then claims that animal testing is a "failure" for not
living up to his sophistical misinterpretation.  He
also gleefully commits lying by omission, right along
with all other "aras", by claiming that the
post-approval failure of a drug, i.e. one that causes
injury or death in people for whom it is prescribed,
somehow "proves" that animal testing "fails", while
omitting to point out that three phases of human
clinical trials, far more concerned with establishing
the safety of the compound, *also* occurred prior to
approval.  It is undeniable that "aras" are lying by
omission in saying that ONLY the animal testing
"failed", but that doesn't bother Dreck; he just wants
to "win", no matter at what cost to the truth.

Have some fun with him, but don't expect a shred of
honesty from him in your, uh, "debate".  He is a lying
sh.t-stirrer from start to finish.