Evidence
Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 162

Thread: Evidence

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    141

    Post

    Hi,

    I am delighted that the subject of 'The honeybee "dance language" controversy', has been closed by Barry.

    Here, however, is a copy of part of an e-mail message (of Dec. 2003) from Jim Fischer to me, within a set of e-mail exchanges we had about the radar-tracking studies carried out by the joint British-German team, long before those studies were published in 2005 (with the first part published in PNAS, and the second part published in the journal Nature. The portions quoted in Jim's message are from my e-mail message, to which he is responding:
    -----------------------------------------------
    > You claim that a "realistic" test whether honeybees have
    > a DL should use a "large target area".

    Correct.

    > Since this has never been done,

    Yes, it has been done. The harmonic radar tests do exactly that. The bees are tracked as they forage on natural sources of nectar and pollen.
    -------------------------------------------------
    The last statement in his message is what he claimed in the ChatRoom (in the now closed subject), that he had never stated, and that I had imagined it under the effects of some illicit drug.

    Enough said!

    I am probably breaking netiquette rules by posting here a portion of a personal message, but, under the circumstances, I couldn't care less.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    BeeSource.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    The Scenic Flint Hills , KS
    Posts
    4,971

    Post

    Actully, Ruth, it has been moved to a more appropriate forum.

    Again you are posting in the wrong area of Beesource. This Chatroom Forum is for posting information about the Chatroom, times and subjects of interest to those that go there. I explained all that to you, but it did not seem to soak in. I will try again -

    ***********************************************
    Here we have a web site called *Beesource.com*, within is a *Bulletin Board* called the *Exchange*, with subdivisions called *Forums*, that has subjects called *Threads* where we make *Posts* in which we carry on conversations.

    This Chatroom Forum is for people that want to post information about the Chatroom that is a totally different site where live time conversations are carried on when people are logged in, usually in the evenings. It is usually not monitored and not censored.

    The chatroom site is here:

    http://www.bee-l.com/beesourcechat.htm

    ***********************************************


    If you really want to find your origional thread about the DL, go to the main Bee Forum, it's there.

    https://www.beesource.com/cgi-bin/ubb...c;f=2;t=004645
    Bullseye Bill in The Scenic Flint Hills , KS
    www.myspace.com/dukewilliam

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    141

    Post

    To Bullseye Bill,

    I wanted to add to my subject of "Evidence", which has been moved to the "Bee Forum", by you, I suppose. You now advise me that the "Bee Forum" is not the appropriate forum for my addition to the subject of "Evidence". I don't know why this subject has been moved to an inappropriate forum. Perhaps my addition to this specific subject is inappropriate for this forum, because the addition is relevant to the now closed "DL" subject. But I give up!

  5. #4
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Whitefield, Maine USA
    Posts
    6,584

    Post

    >I wanted to add to my subject of "Evidence", which has been moved to the "Bee Forum", by you, I suppose.

    I suppose, by Barry or one of the Forum administrators. The Bee Forum is the proper place for this discussion!

    Please continue.
    Dulcius ex asperis

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    141

    Post

    To Fergusson,

    Earlier today I sent a brief message about the "evidence" for a story that staunch DL supporters had circulated among themselves, and who knows where else, as "a well-known story". According to the "story" :"The only problem v. Frisch's DL hypothesis ever had was a life-long grudge that Wenner has held against v. Frisch." The cause for that "grudge" was that v. Frisch deliberately delayed publication of Wenner's study on the sound produced by dancing foragers (which Wenner published in 1962), in order to give his own student, Harald Esch the opportunity to gain priority by publishing a study on the same subject first (in 1961).

    I couldn't stop laughing when I read that "grudge story". I advised the person who had brought the "story" to my attention, that the DL hypothesis had a few other "minor" problems, including having been stillborn, more than 20 years before its inception, thanks to v. Frisch's first study on honeybee-recruitment.

    Eventually it turned out that v. Frisch apparently served as an anonymous referee on the article submitted by Wenner, and published in 1962. V. Frisch could not, however, have helped Esch gain priority, because a brief report on Wenner's study, including tests & results, had already been published in the US in 1959.

    Moreover, until very recently Wenner had no idea that v. Frisch was in any way involved in Wenner's 1962 publication. Wenner could not, therefore, have held any "life-long" grudge against v. Frisch, on account of an issue Wenner knew nothing about.

    My message was not posted, on the grounds that it was inappropriate for the present forum. I may be wasting my time, rewriting an even shorter version, and trying to send it again.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Whitefield, Maine USA
    Posts
    6,584

    Post

    >Moreover, until very recently Wenner had no idea that v. Frisch was in any way involved in Wenner's 1962 publication.

    In what sense was he involved?

    >My message was not posted, on the grounds that it was inappropriate for the present forum.

    Well here in the Bee Forum, anything bee-related is ok. The Chat Forum where the discussion had been held in the past was deemed an "innappropriate" place for that type of discussion. That's not the only thing that was inappropriate about it!

    There's 2 things that get Forum Administrator's undies in a bunch, not necessarily in this order:

    1) Off-Topic postings- either off-topic for the forum, or off-topic for the thread underway i.e., talking about candle making in the Queen Breeding forum or talking about hive construction in a thread about mite treatments. However, a certain amount of "wandering" in a thread is tolerated and expected.

    2) Rude and insulting behavior. Personal attacks. Name calling. Arguments and heated discussions are one thing. Name calling is quite another. It's all fun and games till somebody puts an eye out [img]smile.gif[/img]

    The original "DL Controversy" thread reminded me of a 3 Stooges episode where a high-society tea party turned into a pie-throwing free-for-all. Disgraceful [img]smile.gif[/img]

    So, if we keep it in the right forum, keep it civil, and try not to get too far off topic, we'll pretty much stay out of trouble. Maybe.

    The original thread in all it's glory is now in the Bee Forum, as is this one, where they belong:

    https://www.beesource.com/cgi-bin/ubb...c;f=2;t=004645

    It can be resumed, or not. I for one would like to hear more about the DL controversy. I came across a paper the other day, recent I believe, involving attaching tiny radar transponders to bees and tracking their flight paths after being released. I'll see if I can find it again.

    George-
    Dulcius ex asperis

  8. #7
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Whitefield, Maine USA
    Posts
    6,584

    Post

    Ah- here it is. There are a number of news stories about this, but only this page has a particular graphic showing flight paths of bees, which I found particularly interesting:

    http://acp.eugraph.com/news/news05/riley.html

    The flight paths of bees that witnessed a waggle dance and released from the hive trend toward the food source.

    The flight paths of bees that witnessed the same waggle dance but were released at other points away from the hive showed similar flight paths (direction and distance) of the bees leaving the hive, but of course, there was no food source where they ended up. Wouldn't this tend to rule out the "odor alone" argument, at least in some cases? If they were navigating by odor (in this case), why didn't they find the food source?
    Dulcius ex asperis

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    141

    Post

    To Fergusson, Hi,

    Re:"In what way was he involved?"

    I suppose you know very little about science. You , thus, did not understand what I said about v. Frisch having apparently served as an anonymous referee on the article Wenner's article that was eventually published in Anim. Behav. in 1962. Serious scientific journals do not accept for publication any submitted article, without first sending the article to several anonymous experts ("referees") for their evaluation (known as "peer reviews"). If a referee delays submitting his review, for whatever reason, this will delay publication of the article, even if all the referees end up recommending that it be published.

    The radar-tracking study to which you refer concerns the publication by Riley et al. in Nature (of May, 12, 2005). Everyone knew that the publication was due, because an Abstract claiming that the authors "achieved for the first time a direct experimental confirmation of the DL hypothesis", was posted on the Internet at least a year and a half prior to publication. The study was also touted all over the popular scientific media immediately after publication. DL opponents began to deal with the study as soon as it was published. Wenner debunked the authors' claims on BeeSource P.O.V.

    I debunked the authors' conclusions in e-mail exchanges with Wenner, e-mail exchanges with all the 5 authors of the study, in posts on Scifraud, Bee-L, the Irishbeekeeping site, BeeSource P.O.V., and in one of my 6 posts on the animal-behaviour list, and the COMPARATIVE PSYCHOLOGY list of TCU. I think I dealt with that particular study in the 5th, or 6th post. I advised members of the Chatroom how to access those posts.

    Very briefly, the authors did their best to prevent the food, feeder, feeder-stand, and feeder-site from becoming contaminated with any environmental odors; which is why, among others, they used only unscented food. They claim that honeybee-recruits find unscented sources even in nature, even by their own results. (As I found out from one of the authors, the only 2 tracked bees that "landed at the feeder", according to the published report, arrived there on their own, without any upwind zigzag, and landed only on the feeder-stand, but never found the food, nor the feeder.) However, as soon as you introduce the use of scented food, you obtain the upwind zigzag through which recruits invariably arrive at sources of attractive odors from as far as the bees can only bee spotted by observers at the sources with the naked eye, i.e. from a distance of at least 10 m. away. This typical manner of arrival alone suffices to completely discredit the DL hypothesis, because, if recruits use DL information, they are expected to often arrive from the direction of the hive, at points that are far closer than 10 m. away from the sources (and especially from the source that serves as foragers'-feeder), by use of that information alone. When such a point happens to be within the odor-plume from any source, recruits are then expected to arrive at the source through an upwind zigzag that is far shorter than 10 m. But this expectation has never materialized, in observations on thousands of new-arrivals.

    Logically speaking, what this means is that, the radar-team discovered that honeybees use a DL that cannot exist in the real world; which means that it cannot exist at all. They could not, of course, have discovered that honeybees use a non-existent DL; which leaves only the other alternative, i.e. that there is something wrong with the study. What it might be, I do not know.

    I can point out to enough problems that raise doubts that the radar-tracked bees were indeed regular-recruits. Here, however, I shall note only one problem: According to the DL hypothesis if recruits do not find attractive odors after using the spatial information. In the radar-tracking study, however, many of the tracked bees did not search for attractive odors at all, but turned around and flew back to the hive. This would be a serious problem for the DL hypothesis, because when recruits attend round dances, none of them can find anything without searching for attractive odors starting at the hive.

    I noted that I have good reasons to doubt that the authors indeed succeeded in preventing all odor-contamination. To determine that, I need an answer to the question whether un-tracked new bees that found the feeder-site on their own also arrived there without any upwind zigzag. But, for some reason, I am unable to obtain an answer to this very simple question.

    Incidentally, one staunch DL supporter, who participated in some of the discussions on that study, but not in the study itself, insists that the only way odor-effects; and which is pure nonsense. If honeybee-recruits use a DL, adding scent to the food can in no way prevent the bees from using their DL.

    That radar-tracking study is just another example out of very many, where the "peer review" process has been a disaster, because it is obvious that the editors did not include even one single DL opponent among the referees they chose.

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Brasher Falls, NY, USA
    Posts
    34,541

    Post

    "I suppose you know very little about science."

    I just thought that I'd give Ruth Rosin a chance to insult me, too. Shouldn't we all have the pleasure?

    Ms. Rosin, Are you this unkind and undiplomatic in your face to face encounters with your fellow humans? Or is this just something special that you do for those that you encounter on line?

    It seems to me that George asked you a sincere and unchallenging question and you came back at him with an insult.

    I certainly could be misinterperating what you said and what your intent was. I do have trouble reading between the lines in e-communication. So, maybe you can set me straight.

    By the way. Is "Prickly pear" your chosen nick name or what others call you.

    "Sincerely",
    Mark Berninghausen

  11. #10
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Whitefield, Maine USA
    Posts
    6,584

    Post

    I suppose you know very little about science.
    Well, I did take 6 years of science in high school, my father was a scientist (physicist) and I was raised in a home that encouraged scientific enquiry via the scientific method. I however never did go on to attend college. In my professional career I was not nor am I now a "scientist" so you are correct in one sense- I know very little about the formal practice of science as it exists in the halls, classrooms, laboratories, and bathrooms of academia. I do know of and understand the concept of "peer review". Please don't assume my questions are a result of stupidity. I may be dumb but I'm not stupid.

    You , thus, did not understand what I said about v. Frisch having apparently served as an anonymous referee on the article Wenner's article that was eventually published in Anim. Behav. in 1962.
    More likely Ruth, I failed to pick up on that particular detail. Thanks for taking the time to explain it and the manner in which v. Frisch might or might not have affected the timing of the publication of Wenner's paper. Sorry you had to do it twice. I got it now.

    Very briefly, the authors did their best to prevent the food, feeder, feeder-stand, and feeder-site from becoming contaminated with any environmental odors
    Well, doing this makes sense from an experimental perspective, no? Especially if you're trying to eliminate odor as a factor in the bees finding the food source?

    However, as soon as you introduce the use of scented food, you obtain the upwind zigzag through which recruits invariably arrive at sources of attractive odors
    I suppose one difficulty is determining if bees doing the zigzag thing actually ever witnessed the dancing and if the bees that did witness the dance did the zigzag thing or instead made a beeline for the feeder?

    One thing that is clear from the radar study: bees left the various release points and flew on similar courses regardless of whether they were actually heading for a feeder or just thought there was a feeder. Why should not I, an untrained, largely ignorant layperson, draw the obvious conclusions from this data?

    I am not privy to the details of the experiment, I only have access to the boiled down conclusions fed to the ininformed ignorant masses- one of the "problems" if you ask me, with the current scientist mindset: hold your cards close, share only with your conspirators, and keep the consuming public largely in the dark.

    George-
    Dulcius ex asperis

  12. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Brasher Falls, NY, USA
    Posts
    34,541

    Post

    Don't poke the lion now, George. [img]smile.gif[/img]
    Mark Berninghausen

  13. #12
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Whitefield, Maine USA
    Posts
    6,584

    Post

    >I just thought that I'd give Ruth Rosin a chance to insult me, too.

    With an overture like that Mark, you'll get what you ask for [img]smile.gif[/img]

    For what it's worth, I didn't find her comment to me particularly insulting- somewhat inflamatory perhaps.. presumptuous maybe.. OK, so it was a little bit insulting. I wasn't insulted. She actually said "Hi" to me first [img]smile.gif[/img] The fact is, I'm NOT a scientist and don't want to be a scientist, but I would play one on TV.

    Again for what it's worth, I asked a question and I got an answer. I like that.

    >Don't poke the lion now, George.

    Always, at every opportunity, with a sharp stick [img]smile.gif[/img]

    George-
    Dulcius ex asperis

  14. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oceano, California, USA
    Posts
    467

    Post

    Ms. Rosin, Are you this unkind and undiplomatic in your face to face encounters with your fellow humans? Or is this just something special that you do for those that you encounter on line?
    She wasn't being unkind. George didn't even do her the common courtesy of reading her post carefully before asking a rather dumb question. If you want people with valuable knowledge to post here you shouldn't lecture them on etiquette. Especially people like you, Mark, who admit to not reading with much understanding.

  15. #14
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Whitefield, Maine USA
    Posts
    6,584

    Post

    >George didn't even do her the common courtesy of reading her post carefully before asking a rather dumb question.

    Zing!

    Nice one Tim! So far I think you're in the lead here. You insult me in the third person over a polite if stupid exchange that I had with Ruth (for which I already apologized) in an overtly insulting harrangue directed towards Mark over his etiquette and reading comprehension skills. Beautiful!

    Thanks for contributing to the substance of this thread!
    Dulcius ex asperis

  16. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Columbia, South Carolina USA
    Posts
    2,596

    Post

    "She wasn't being unkind."

    "If you want people with valuable knowledge to post here you shouldn't lecture them on etiquette."

    You should if they are routinely rude. I don't give a whit how smart or well trained someone is.
    If you cannot say something nice . . .


    Keith

    George - you must be a carpenter!

    [size="1"][ February 12, 2006, 09:08 AM: Message edited by: kgbenson ][/size]
    Bee Sting Honey - So Good, It Hurts!

  17. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Erin, NY /Florence SC
    Posts
    3,571

    Post

    It seems apparrent most of bee behavior is governed by pheremones and scents so a bee brain structure should reflect that. As I stated in an earlier post on a thread about this topic the bees would have to have the ability to have a "scent record" which would be learned. (in a similar fashion to dogs who record and recall all scents encountered). It would seem simple science to determine whether honey bees have the capacity to do this on a much smaller scale. Although it would not prove the odor theory it could add credence. If in fact bees could not have this capacity then it may disprove the theory. What research and results have been forwarded in this area?

  18. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    141

    Post

    Hi, to all members who consider me unkind, insulting, etc.

    I chose the nickname "Prickly pear", because I have been, for very many years, "a thorn in the side" of DL supporters, as well as various other scientists who delude themselves (and then editors of serious scientific journals & their referees, most of the rest of the scientific community, and the general public) into into believing they had experimentally confirmed that various other animals have various incredible, genetically predetermined ("instinctive") capabilities, such as the claim that various subhumans use a magnetic compass (the MC hypothesis.

    I also chose the nickname "Prickly pear", because I am a native Israeli, and the Arabic word for prickly pear, which some of you might have heard, i.e. "Sabra", has been used for very many years as a nickname for native Israelis. The nickname was apparently invented by those who concluded that, like the prickly pear, native Israelis are "pests, that are very difficult to get rid of" (as anyone who knows the plant will attest), and that they are "rough and full of thorns on the outside, but soft and sweet inside" (as anyone who has ever tested the fruit of the prickly pear, would attest).

    Other than that, I am a scientist, trained in what scientists must be trained to do first and foremost, i.e. think very clearly, carefully, and rigorously. This does not mean that all scientists do that all the time. As a staunch DL opponent, I can often discover where staunch supporters have failed to use fully rigorous thinking, and point their errors up to them. (This, incidentally, has become very difficult to do, when scientific journals have almost entirely banned DL opponents. The editors of such journals just can't believe that the Nobel Committee could have made an egregious error!)

    I am, however, not an educator. I don't know how to explain complex scientific issues to persons who are not trained in science, and I don't have the patience to even try to do it, when I often cannot even understand why they did not understand what I had already explained repeatedly before, or when I catch those who are trained in science, dabbling in "pathological science" (coming up with preposterously faulty arguments, or inventing experiments that never existed).

    I was kind enough to, again, explain to Fergusson how v. Frisch might have become involved in a publication of a study by Wenner, only because I believed the "poor guy" didn't know anything about "peer reviews". Had I known that, as Fergusson has by now disclosed, he knew what "peer reviews" were, I might very well have exploded, instead of patiently answering his question yet again.

    My point in bringing up that issue, however, was not at all to conjecture over whether v. Frisch did, or did not, deliberately cause a delay in the publication of Wenner's study. My point was, instead, to demonstrate the hilarious pretexts to which staunch DL supporters resort, in order to delude themselves, and others, into believing that v. Frisch's DL hypothesis never had any problems (when the hypothesis has, in fact, had nothing but very serious problems), and that Wenner's opposition to that hypothesis, is not based on any scientific grounds, but only on an old, emotional grudge; which Wenner never even had, and never could have had.

    What staunch DL supporters have done here is just one symptom of "very sick science". DL supporters refuse to "see" that which DL opponents have repeatedly shoved right in front of their eyes, and they manage to delude themselves into believing they do not even need to look at it.

    How is that? First, they correctly conclude that scientists must deal with scientific arguments, but ignore arguments that are based on emotions, instead of science. Then, they delude themselves into believing they are serious scientists, and that the only problem they face here is an emotional problem; which they are required to ignore.

  19. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    141

    Post

    To Joel,

    Sorry, but it neither seems, nor is it correct, that most of honeybee-behavior is governed by pheromone and scents. Their behavior is affected by all their senses. (They wouldn't even have all their senses, if they didn't need them.)

    It is well-known that honeybees can learn to recognize and remember odors, colors, shapes, etc. Their whole learning process is, however, qualitatively different, and simpler in insects, than it is in dogs, and qualitatively different and simpler in dogs, than it is in humans. (This is a complex issue, which concerns the very foundations of the whole field of Behavioral Science. And I will not get involved in it here.)

    There is, however, no question that honeybees can learn, and remember odors. This is proved, among others, by the finding in v. Frisch's first study on honeybee-recruitment, that recruits found only dishes with the foragers' food-odor, but none of the dishes with a different food-odor. It was proved also long before that, when v. Frisch tested the sensitivity of honeybees to odors. Never mind that he arrived at a totally erroneous conclusion. But he started his tests by training honeybee-foragers to forage on dishes of sugar-water with a specific odor. The bees would not have been able to do that, unless they learned to recognize and remember that specific odor.

    It has been known for very long that insects in general can learn and remember odors, and that flying insects in general can find sources of attractive odors in the field, by use of odor alone all along, and that includes solitary flying insects, that have no one to provide them with any information about the location of any food. Not only that, but v. Frisch's DL hypothesis includes the use of odors, which recruits remember after having learned to recognize the odors. According to the DL hypothesis, recruits first use the spatial-information contained in foragers'-dances, but if such use does not get them to a point where they can sense the odors they had learned to recognize (by receiving food with such odors from the dancing foragers), they then, search for attractive odors. V. Frisch claimed, however, that they then need to search for attractive odors only nearby, and that this search for odors leads them to find sources of attractive odors only within a relatively short distance of the point where they started the search (like 100 m. from the hive for Austrian honeybees, when they attend round dances, and must (even according to the DL hypothesis), search for attractive odors, starting at the hive.

    The whole idea that by searching for attractive odors within a relatively short range, around a starting point recruits will find sources of attractive odors only within a short range of that starting point, forms an integral part of the DL hypothesis. But this whole idea is in error, based on v. Frisch's very early erroneous conclusion that honeybees have a very poor, human like sensitivity to odors. V. Frisch took it for granted that presumed use of the spatial information contained in dances, only serves to aid recruits in finding attractive odors. He, therefore, also took it for granted that whenever they sense attractive odors, they leave whatever else they are doing (such as using the spatial information, if they are in the midst of doing that), and respond to the odors. Now, suppose, as v. Frisch claimed< that they use the spatial information all the way through, sense no attractive odors, and, then, search for attractive odors within a short range of the point they reached by use of the spatial information alone. If they have a very poor sensitivity to odors, they would never be able to sense attractive odors from sources that are outside that range, unless the sources are still very close to the boundary of that range. However, since honeybees are exceptionally highly sensitive to odors, even if they were capable of conducting an odor-search that would be restricted within a specific short range of the starting point, there is nothing to prevent them from sensing wind-borne attractive odors from sources that are hundred of meters away from the boundaries of that range. According to v. Frisch, they must then, respond to those odors; which would lead them to find sources of attractive odors also very far away from the boundaries of that range.

    DL opponents claim that honeybee-recruits do not use any spatial information from foragers'-dances, but only odor alone all along. I presented in this forum, more than enough experimental evidence to justify that claim. You apparently understood none of that evidence. Otherwise, I cannot explain to myself why you are still concerned with means to test whether honeybee-recruits do, or do not use spatial information about the location of the foragers' food-site, that is contained in foragers'-dances.

    The problem had been repeatedly fully adequately solved long ago, starting with the evidence v. Frisch obtained in his first study on honeybee-recruitment, which led him to fully justifiably conclude that honeybee-recruits use no information about the location of any food.

    I have obviously been unable to make you understand that no one needs to try to again solve this long solved problem, any more that it is necessary to try and again solve the long solved problem whether the earth is, or is not flat. I shall not try again to make you understand that much!

  20. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Brasher Falls, NY, USA
    Posts
    34,541

    Post

    Whoa Tim. I've been burned.

    Did I say that i didn't read with much understanding? Maybe I wrote that I often don't understand everything, but did I don't read with understanding? And whatb are you doing wasting your time reading my posts anyway? [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]

    Here's one thing that I will say, over and over. There are NO dumb questions. There are NO dumb questions.

    There certainly are ignorantly phrased questions, but anyone who asks a sincere question deserves the respect of the person being questioned. Because the person asking the question is smart enough to know that they don't know the answer to the question that they are trying to get the answer to.

    [size="1"][ February 12, 2006, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: sqkcrk ][/size]
    Mark Berninghausen

  21. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Brasher Falls, NY, USA
    Posts
    34,541

    Post

    I'm going to bow out of this thread, now that I have given my pound and a half of flesh. I have been abused by better people who have abused me here. And yes, I know that I invited "cactus fruit" to do so. But I didn't know that TV was invited too. How short sighted of me.

    BOYCOTT THIS THREAD. BOYCOTT THIS THREAD. BOYCOTT THIS THREAD. BOYCOTT THIS THREAD.
    Mark Berninghausen

Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •