Quote:
Originally Posted by razeraze
BW The sources I talk to ask me why I bother getting into these squabbles with snake keepers, so I do not want a ton of people contacting them harassing them about this. How ever I sent you the list of the 4 people I have talked and more I could contact if you wish, I would appreciate you treat them with more respect than you do me and not pass their names onto everyone.
|
Got it. I know alot of names on here and have known a couple of these guys for years. I think several, if not most, are already in my contacts. Although I fail to see why you did not publicly reference the book
And of course I treat them with respect. I always try to to treat everyone with respect until they prove they warrant treatment otherwise (whether permanently or in a particular situation). But I will check these out when I have a chance and hopefully we can shed some definitive light on the validity of some of your claims.
Quote:
|
If this is true then why bash me when I am quoting the very people you look to answers for?
|
Because they can back up their claims. It is that simple. I think that you don't understand why you are getting your rectum handed to you repeatedly. It is because you SAY you have proof, but have not provided it. This makes your argument invalidated. You are making some drastic claims. If you are going to make drastic claims, then it should be "I think THIS is correct and This, This, and This are evidence to prove this stance.". But what you offer is "THIS is the way it is because someone told me so". Can you see the difference? You did good by giving the reference relating bat consumption. However, you also have make sure that you read the entire works and comprehend the data. Your conclusions regarding the bat consumption is not supported by the paper. After that snafu, other claims based on sources become suspect as well. If you are going to site scientific information, then the information must be available or be first hand information otherwise the argument holds no weight. THAT is why many respected individuals can argue a point successfully and you often fail at it. Hopefully that sheds some light and will help you in providing valid arguments in the future. Your arguments in this instance are reminiscent of the Burm Range Map from USGS. It look official, but once proof was asked for, it could not be provided to back up their claims. This is why Michael and Dave tore it to shreds.
Quote:
|
The last source for the outside surface readings was not listed for the same reason. He is not a field researcher or herpetologist or author he simply keeps varanids and does some field herping.
|
That is where alot of good data comes from. Actually, that is how a great deal of research is spawned. Field herpers observe unique instances in the wild and share their findings. Then someone "official" investigates it "officially". Since you hold this person's experiences in high regard, perhaps you should yield a bit respect to the experience of those have a decade or more of experience with various species both in captivity and in the field.
Getting way back to the original topic. Another thought came to me while driving today. Perhaps in some species we are seeing more sensitivity due to inbreeding depression.
BCI, in particular, is very prone to this. But we see it as well in most boids. Just one more cog to add to the machine to possible causes of regurgitation.
