Post by Sherry on Jan 12, 2013 10:20:07 GMT -5
Thanks for finding this hurricanekatt!
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 02:21:03 -0800
From: Bob C <talktobobc@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Bob C: Teeth and diet and raw and kibble and the restaurant at the end of the universe
Between family, the Ferret Project, work, and medical issues, it seems as if I have to get an appointment just to sneeze, much less read all my emails, various ferret lists, and my professional correspondence (including journals still needing review). In truth, I hadn't read an FML for about a month. You will understand then why my interest was peaked to see a "please read" email copied and posted a dozen times in order to get my attention. It did. I opened it to discover scores of copied posts from the FML regarding,
a) my remarks made in Portland in 2007,
b) a lot of stuff about the raw v. kibble diet, and
c) a plea to say something.
Holy cow! I can be off the FML for weeks and *still* get stuck in the middle of a controversy! I was at a loss for words, but you know me; I found some. I sent the stuff, with my response post, to a good friend for an "outsider evaluation" to tell me if my response was over-reactive. I was told it was and that it was clear from posters on both sides of the controversy that I was seen as an authority. I was advised to delete my initial response and write another. There is nothing better than a third party to evaluate a post to determine if it is reactionary or simply a strong debate. More people should do it.
The 2007 Portland symposium was an interesting one. While driving out, I contracted severe food poisoning that rather violently reared its ugly head Saturday morning. It didn't care that I had a presentation later that day. However, friends and vets helped me with the worst of the symptoms and the IFC kindly moved presentations around to give me a better chance of talking without the embarrassment of vomiting in public -- or worse, and believe me there was much worse. Sunday was no better, and by Monday I was in a local hospital where I spent most of the week in treatment. During that time, I was on IV morphine, the result being my memory is a bit spotty. Nonetheless, I still have my notes and original powerpoints and surprisingly I can recall the presentations I was able to attend or give. Not that it matters; my opinions -- and remarks -- haven't changed very much since then. However, I do think my remarks -- as presented recently on the FML -- are taken a bit out of context in that they report a conclusion without offering the explanation for why it was made. In this case, the explanation is as important as the conclusion. Please, allow me to clarify for the benefit of all.
I try to be extremely unbiased and honest about my research. Consequently, I tend to err on the side of the angels when drawing conclusions. If I am not sure why a ferret is doing something, I will say my opinion is suppositional and lacks evidence. If there is not a direct link between two phenomena, then I do not report it as such. For example, there *is* a direct link between insulinoma and carbohydrate consumption, as well as between neutering and adrenal disease, but there is *not* a direct link between kibble consumption and tartar formation.
One reason is because ferret saliva lacks some of the enzymes found in human saliva that are responsible for initiating the breakdown of carbohydrates. This is why ferrets don't get caries; their saliva is mostly a lubricant for bolting food particles rather than a pre-digestive agent for starches. While ferrets can still form the bacterial mats necessary for the initial formation of plaque, which progresses to tartar, it is at a much-reduced rate because the saliva is not converting starches into oral sugars. Buildup of tartar in ferrets is mostly due to a lack of mechanical abrasion, such as achieved when teeth are plunged through fur, skin, fat, muscle, bone, and all the intermediate connective tissues when killing and eating prey. This is generally true for all carnivores, especially for hypercarnivores such as ferrets. When a carnivore consumes whole prey, the food itself acts as a toothbrush to cleanse the teeth from the crown facets to below the gum line. Kibble does not perform the same function, not in ferrets, and not in cats or dogs (all three species have roughly a 90-95% periodontal disease rate). In ferrets, the reason is because the teeth are extremely thin with a chisel-like point. There is not a kibble made that can brush down the sides of the teeth, much less under the gum line, to cleanse them in a manner similar to when eating a whole carcass. The kibble breaks on the tooth's cutting facets and is simply swallowed. There is no mechanical cleansing.
There is a second factor that complicates matters. Whole prey is juicy, not sticky, so little remains in the ferret's mouth to initiate the formation of plaque and tartar. Ferrets and polecats that consume whole prey have extremely minor rates of tartar buildup. You can't say the same for ferrets eating kibble. It doesn't clean teeth and because tiny particles of kibble get trapped in the mouth and turn to sludge, it becomes a contributing factor in tartar formation. The same thing happens when a ferret eats a soft or liquid diet. It is astounding to see the exaggerated rates of tartar buildup in ferrets on soft foods; they are the absolute worst tartar buildup and periodontal disease rates I've found. Kibble does the same thing, albeit at a much slower rate.
So, kibble is not *directly* responsible for periodontal disease. It is a contributing factor in ferrets that are not given veterinary dental cleanings or tooth brushings. Understand how kibble can be a contributing factor and not a direct cause? Because the direct link for periodontal disease is the lack of mechanical cleansing of the teeth, not the food. Excepting whole prey, all the food really does is change the rate of the disease, not initiate it. So, if someone says I said kibble is not responsible for dental disease (excluding dental attrition), they are reporting a truth. Still, unless the entire story is told, it leaves the reader with the impression my opinion is that kibble is a non-factor in dental disease, which it is decidedly not. It is not a cause of periodontal disease, but it certainly exacerbates the problem.
I have to point out my dental data is empirical and forms a continuum in the shape of a normal distribution, or "bell curve." There are several implications inherent in these types of continuums, the first being that tartar buildup starts at nothing and continues without interruption to 100 percent. This makes division points arbitrary; I simply use standard deviations to form categories that artificially define specific points on a continuum, but they are not real divisions.
Second, because it is a bell curve, the majority of ferrets score somewhere near the middle of the curve, with fewer ferrets seen towards the two extremes. In other words, most ferrets show an average amount of tartar, while less show below average or above average, and very few show rare or excessive amounts. My bell curve is a bit skewed towards the periodontal disease side, but it is a normal distribution nonetheless.
Another implication is you can predict in generalities (or populations), but not in specifics (or individuals). While the vast majority of ferrets and polecats that eat a whole prey diet have little tartar, some do. Likewise, some ferrets consuming an all-liquid diet might not show any tartar. You can accurately predict at the population level, but not so accurately with individuals. Lastly, there *are* other factors involved. A person might claim their ferrets eat nothing but kibble and lack tartar, but a close inspection of husbandry might reveal the ferrets eat cheweasels, foamy fries, n-bones, chicken wings, might have regular dental care, or ferret-show-related tooth scraping. Some ferrets are fabric or toy chewers. Some ferrets might be stressed or ill. Without an evaluation of all possible factors, any given example is nothing more than an anecdotal observation. These stories could certainly be true, but they are not considered empirical evidence.
I have counted at least a dozen such factors that complicate prediction of tartar. This doesn't mean there is a problem with the overall conclusions; it simply means it is hard to predict which ferrets will have periodontal disease and how much. Like with the diseases of smoking, predicting periodontal disease rates is best at the population level.
[End of Part 1]
[2-part post combined. BIG] Part 2
Some of you might ask why I am so confident of my findings if there are so many factors involved. The reason is because I have refused to publish early, insisting on waiting until I have reached statistical redundancy. That means I have counted samples until percentages no longer change; they have reached redundancy. Further counting is redundant. When you reach redundancy you have empirical evidence your sample -- regardless of size -- matches the greater population. It *includes all* possible variations, except perhaps those that are extremely rare, but they have no real impact on the numbers anyway. Pointing out exceptions to a redundant sample has no value; such exceptions are already included in the sample. Redundant samples accurately reflect the population from which they were derived. With a redundant sample of ferrets with dental disease, I can construct a bell curve that will show numbers of ferrets affected by periodontal disease, as well as how many will have rare amounts, moderate amounts, average amounts, more-than-normal amounts, and excessive amounts of the problem. Those numbers will be accurate, even if I cannot accurately predict how an individual ferret might be impacted.
By now you probably realize the various factors involved in periodontal disease are best characterized as "risks" or "probabilities." If you feed a liquid diet and don't brush the ferret's teeth, they have a high risk for periodontal disease. The risk is above average for a ferret eating kibble with no other dental care. For a ferret eating a whole carcass diet, the risk is low. So, to put it in better perspective, even though the lifetime risk of being hit by lightning has been calculated as 1/80,000, people still get hit and killed. Even if risks are low or high, there are always exceptions. Those exceptions *do not* falsify the risks. Showing a handful of ferrets having a horrible diet but escaping periodontal disease does *not* prove such a connection does not exist, especially when the sample in question has been tested to redundancy.
Perhaps this is the time to point out my research is already published in the vet literature, and I've lectured on it to vet students, as well as presented the information to the NAVC (North American Veterinary Conference). An independent study of ferret dental problems by a group of dental vets has confirmed my results, with the exception of fracture rates. Other vets are starting to publish similar findings as well.
Which brings up the raw v. kibble diet. I have a major paper on the subject that is currently being written and reviewed. It will be difficult to post in the FML because of the inability to publish illustrations, requiring the use of language to get a point across. This makes the posts long and involved. I am considered using my Facebook Notes to publish the posts so I can include illustrations.
In the past, Bill has temporarily posted pictures for people to download, but in the long run, the posts and the illustrations are orphaned from one another. I'll probably post them in both locales. The need for illustrations is important because trying to explain how kibble damages teeth without showing photos of the injuries is extremely difficult, and perhaps unbelievable. The pictures are valuable in showing the direct effects of eating kibble.
The same is true when discussing diet. A single illustration can be worth many paragraphs of descriptive language. I hope to start posting on diet before the end of the year. Until then, I'll just make a few comments about this whole 'mess' (pun intended...mess? Place to eat? Mess hall?).
I never feed live animals to my ferrets. I buy mice, rats, chicks, and other types of foods that have been killed and frozen. This is a personal choice. I can find no nutritional advantages to feeding live animals to ferrets. I simply cannot do it. I can feed a dead animal to a ferret.
Feeding raw is not the same as feeding whole carcass. A whole carcass includes everything; skin, fur, bone, muscle; you name it. Raw could be just a chicken wing. Feeding a raw diet might or might not be nutritionally complete depending on the exact food and proportions offered. Carnivores evolved consuming whole carcasses and they can be considered nutritionally complete. A whole carcass diet meets or exceeds all AAFCO (Association of American Feed Control Officials) requirements for all life stages, so it is minimally as good as *any* commercial diet that meets AAFCO requirements.
Most of the other points can wait for the dietary posts; this mini-tome is already too long. However, there is one final point I wish to make. I simply do not understand why people are not allowed to explain their viewpoints without it degenerating into personal attacks. It is simply beyond my understanding. I think it would be a safe bet if I said I have probably visited more ferret people and seen more ways to keep ferrets than anyone else on the planet. I've taken care to document those differences -- and similarities -- in order to try to figure out the best way to keep our little pets. I think I finally have a good handle on it. If my past actions are an indication of what I will do in the future, it is likely I will educate, explain, and allow people to take what they will from the advice offered. My name-calling will be, well, nonexistent. Well, except for the CF&G, but then they deserve it. Although I am quick to defend others or my work, I don't typically defend myself. Nor do I typically attack others without some extreme degree of outrage or provocation. That is not to say I don't occasionally vent; but Bill and I have a long history of him telling me a post is personal, and of me willingly pulling it from publication. It doesn't happen very often and usually because of long-term frustration.
The truth is, the overlying principle to my philosophy is not so much of a grand sense of ethics, but more of a decidedly strong dislike of censorship. Censorship can be a good thing when used to save lives, but generally speaking, it is *not* a good thing for any other purpose. When it comes to discussions of ferret husbandry, it is *not* good because it not only prevents the free discussion of ideas, but it also quiets other voices that might be able to give insight. One of those silenced voices might hold the answer we all need, but they have been intimidated -- censored -- by the outrageous voices of a few "idea bullies" who want no other viewpoint but their own been known or discussed. I don't buy into the idea that censorship will help to save ferret lives. I would expect substantial and repeatable evidence offered for me to accept it.
In an open forum, where people can express their viewpoints without fear of personal attack, a free discussion is illuminating, not dangerous. Problems caused by "idea-bullying" are reflected in natural history; the more variation in a species, the better it can respond to change. Those species with little variation tend to fail to respond to change and go extinct. The more ideas we have, the better we can respond to problems in our ferrets.
You don't have to accept other viewpoints and you can certainly debate them, but you can do both without ever resorting to a personal attack. Ever. There are a lot of ways to enforce censorship, including interrupting people, throwing out numerous references to prove a position, name-calling, shutting down a discussion, or even off-list personal emails. They are *all* designed to silence the voice of the person by making it difficult for them to express their ideas, so they are all forms of censorship. I've been all over the world and have met thousands of ferret people; I've yet to met one that didn't know something I yearned to learn. Like pure cream, good ideas "float" to the top of open and fair discussions. You can only have those types of talks when censorship is prohibited. Just my 2-cents. Bob C
From FML
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 02:21:03 -0800
From: Bob C <talktobobc@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Bob C: Teeth and diet and raw and kibble and the restaurant at the end of the universe
Between family, the Ferret Project, work, and medical issues, it seems as if I have to get an appointment just to sneeze, much less read all my emails, various ferret lists, and my professional correspondence (including journals still needing review). In truth, I hadn't read an FML for about a month. You will understand then why my interest was peaked to see a "please read" email copied and posted a dozen times in order to get my attention. It did. I opened it to discover scores of copied posts from the FML regarding,
a) my remarks made in Portland in 2007,
b) a lot of stuff about the raw v. kibble diet, and
c) a plea to say something.
Holy cow! I can be off the FML for weeks and *still* get stuck in the middle of a controversy! I was at a loss for words, but you know me; I found some. I sent the stuff, with my response post, to a good friend for an "outsider evaluation" to tell me if my response was over-reactive. I was told it was and that it was clear from posters on both sides of the controversy that I was seen as an authority. I was advised to delete my initial response and write another. There is nothing better than a third party to evaluate a post to determine if it is reactionary or simply a strong debate. More people should do it.
The 2007 Portland symposium was an interesting one. While driving out, I contracted severe food poisoning that rather violently reared its ugly head Saturday morning. It didn't care that I had a presentation later that day. However, friends and vets helped me with the worst of the symptoms and the IFC kindly moved presentations around to give me a better chance of talking without the embarrassment of vomiting in public -- or worse, and believe me there was much worse. Sunday was no better, and by Monday I was in a local hospital where I spent most of the week in treatment. During that time, I was on IV morphine, the result being my memory is a bit spotty. Nonetheless, I still have my notes and original powerpoints and surprisingly I can recall the presentations I was able to attend or give. Not that it matters; my opinions -- and remarks -- haven't changed very much since then. However, I do think my remarks -- as presented recently on the FML -- are taken a bit out of context in that they report a conclusion without offering the explanation for why it was made. In this case, the explanation is as important as the conclusion. Please, allow me to clarify for the benefit of all.
I try to be extremely unbiased and honest about my research. Consequently, I tend to err on the side of the angels when drawing conclusions. If I am not sure why a ferret is doing something, I will say my opinion is suppositional and lacks evidence. If there is not a direct link between two phenomena, then I do not report it as such. For example, there *is* a direct link between insulinoma and carbohydrate consumption, as well as between neutering and adrenal disease, but there is *not* a direct link between kibble consumption and tartar formation.
One reason is because ferret saliva lacks some of the enzymes found in human saliva that are responsible for initiating the breakdown of carbohydrates. This is why ferrets don't get caries; their saliva is mostly a lubricant for bolting food particles rather than a pre-digestive agent for starches. While ferrets can still form the bacterial mats necessary for the initial formation of plaque, which progresses to tartar, it is at a much-reduced rate because the saliva is not converting starches into oral sugars. Buildup of tartar in ferrets is mostly due to a lack of mechanical abrasion, such as achieved when teeth are plunged through fur, skin, fat, muscle, bone, and all the intermediate connective tissues when killing and eating prey. This is generally true for all carnivores, especially for hypercarnivores such as ferrets. When a carnivore consumes whole prey, the food itself acts as a toothbrush to cleanse the teeth from the crown facets to below the gum line. Kibble does not perform the same function, not in ferrets, and not in cats or dogs (all three species have roughly a 90-95% periodontal disease rate). In ferrets, the reason is because the teeth are extremely thin with a chisel-like point. There is not a kibble made that can brush down the sides of the teeth, much less under the gum line, to cleanse them in a manner similar to when eating a whole carcass. The kibble breaks on the tooth's cutting facets and is simply swallowed. There is no mechanical cleansing.
There is a second factor that complicates matters. Whole prey is juicy, not sticky, so little remains in the ferret's mouth to initiate the formation of plaque and tartar. Ferrets and polecats that consume whole prey have extremely minor rates of tartar buildup. You can't say the same for ferrets eating kibble. It doesn't clean teeth and because tiny particles of kibble get trapped in the mouth and turn to sludge, it becomes a contributing factor in tartar formation. The same thing happens when a ferret eats a soft or liquid diet. It is astounding to see the exaggerated rates of tartar buildup in ferrets on soft foods; they are the absolute worst tartar buildup and periodontal disease rates I've found. Kibble does the same thing, albeit at a much slower rate.
So, kibble is not *directly* responsible for periodontal disease. It is a contributing factor in ferrets that are not given veterinary dental cleanings or tooth brushings. Understand how kibble can be a contributing factor and not a direct cause? Because the direct link for periodontal disease is the lack of mechanical cleansing of the teeth, not the food. Excepting whole prey, all the food really does is change the rate of the disease, not initiate it. So, if someone says I said kibble is not responsible for dental disease (excluding dental attrition), they are reporting a truth. Still, unless the entire story is told, it leaves the reader with the impression my opinion is that kibble is a non-factor in dental disease, which it is decidedly not. It is not a cause of periodontal disease, but it certainly exacerbates the problem.
I have to point out my dental data is empirical and forms a continuum in the shape of a normal distribution, or "bell curve." There are several implications inherent in these types of continuums, the first being that tartar buildup starts at nothing and continues without interruption to 100 percent. This makes division points arbitrary; I simply use standard deviations to form categories that artificially define specific points on a continuum, but they are not real divisions.
Second, because it is a bell curve, the majority of ferrets score somewhere near the middle of the curve, with fewer ferrets seen towards the two extremes. In other words, most ferrets show an average amount of tartar, while less show below average or above average, and very few show rare or excessive amounts. My bell curve is a bit skewed towards the periodontal disease side, but it is a normal distribution nonetheless.
Another implication is you can predict in generalities (or populations), but not in specifics (or individuals). While the vast majority of ferrets and polecats that eat a whole prey diet have little tartar, some do. Likewise, some ferrets consuming an all-liquid diet might not show any tartar. You can accurately predict at the population level, but not so accurately with individuals. Lastly, there *are* other factors involved. A person might claim their ferrets eat nothing but kibble and lack tartar, but a close inspection of husbandry might reveal the ferrets eat cheweasels, foamy fries, n-bones, chicken wings, might have regular dental care, or ferret-show-related tooth scraping. Some ferrets are fabric or toy chewers. Some ferrets might be stressed or ill. Without an evaluation of all possible factors, any given example is nothing more than an anecdotal observation. These stories could certainly be true, but they are not considered empirical evidence.
I have counted at least a dozen such factors that complicate prediction of tartar. This doesn't mean there is a problem with the overall conclusions; it simply means it is hard to predict which ferrets will have periodontal disease and how much. Like with the diseases of smoking, predicting periodontal disease rates is best at the population level.
[End of Part 1]
[2-part post combined. BIG] Part 2
Some of you might ask why I am so confident of my findings if there are so many factors involved. The reason is because I have refused to publish early, insisting on waiting until I have reached statistical redundancy. That means I have counted samples until percentages no longer change; they have reached redundancy. Further counting is redundant. When you reach redundancy you have empirical evidence your sample -- regardless of size -- matches the greater population. It *includes all* possible variations, except perhaps those that are extremely rare, but they have no real impact on the numbers anyway. Pointing out exceptions to a redundant sample has no value; such exceptions are already included in the sample. Redundant samples accurately reflect the population from which they were derived. With a redundant sample of ferrets with dental disease, I can construct a bell curve that will show numbers of ferrets affected by periodontal disease, as well as how many will have rare amounts, moderate amounts, average amounts, more-than-normal amounts, and excessive amounts of the problem. Those numbers will be accurate, even if I cannot accurately predict how an individual ferret might be impacted.
By now you probably realize the various factors involved in periodontal disease are best characterized as "risks" or "probabilities." If you feed a liquid diet and don't brush the ferret's teeth, they have a high risk for periodontal disease. The risk is above average for a ferret eating kibble with no other dental care. For a ferret eating a whole carcass diet, the risk is low. So, to put it in better perspective, even though the lifetime risk of being hit by lightning has been calculated as 1/80,000, people still get hit and killed. Even if risks are low or high, there are always exceptions. Those exceptions *do not* falsify the risks. Showing a handful of ferrets having a horrible diet but escaping periodontal disease does *not* prove such a connection does not exist, especially when the sample in question has been tested to redundancy.
Perhaps this is the time to point out my research is already published in the vet literature, and I've lectured on it to vet students, as well as presented the information to the NAVC (North American Veterinary Conference). An independent study of ferret dental problems by a group of dental vets has confirmed my results, with the exception of fracture rates. Other vets are starting to publish similar findings as well.
Which brings up the raw v. kibble diet. I have a major paper on the subject that is currently being written and reviewed. It will be difficult to post in the FML because of the inability to publish illustrations, requiring the use of language to get a point across. This makes the posts long and involved. I am considered using my Facebook Notes to publish the posts so I can include illustrations.
In the past, Bill has temporarily posted pictures for people to download, but in the long run, the posts and the illustrations are orphaned from one another. I'll probably post them in both locales. The need for illustrations is important because trying to explain how kibble damages teeth without showing photos of the injuries is extremely difficult, and perhaps unbelievable. The pictures are valuable in showing the direct effects of eating kibble.
The same is true when discussing diet. A single illustration can be worth many paragraphs of descriptive language. I hope to start posting on diet before the end of the year. Until then, I'll just make a few comments about this whole 'mess' (pun intended...mess? Place to eat? Mess hall?).
I never feed live animals to my ferrets. I buy mice, rats, chicks, and other types of foods that have been killed and frozen. This is a personal choice. I can find no nutritional advantages to feeding live animals to ferrets. I simply cannot do it. I can feed a dead animal to a ferret.
Feeding raw is not the same as feeding whole carcass. A whole carcass includes everything; skin, fur, bone, muscle; you name it. Raw could be just a chicken wing. Feeding a raw diet might or might not be nutritionally complete depending on the exact food and proportions offered. Carnivores evolved consuming whole carcasses and they can be considered nutritionally complete. A whole carcass diet meets or exceeds all AAFCO (Association of American Feed Control Officials) requirements for all life stages, so it is minimally as good as *any* commercial diet that meets AAFCO requirements.
Most of the other points can wait for the dietary posts; this mini-tome is already too long. However, there is one final point I wish to make. I simply do not understand why people are not allowed to explain their viewpoints without it degenerating into personal attacks. It is simply beyond my understanding. I think it would be a safe bet if I said I have probably visited more ferret people and seen more ways to keep ferrets than anyone else on the planet. I've taken care to document those differences -- and similarities -- in order to try to figure out the best way to keep our little pets. I think I finally have a good handle on it. If my past actions are an indication of what I will do in the future, it is likely I will educate, explain, and allow people to take what they will from the advice offered. My name-calling will be, well, nonexistent. Well, except for the CF&G, but then they deserve it. Although I am quick to defend others or my work, I don't typically defend myself. Nor do I typically attack others without some extreme degree of outrage or provocation. That is not to say I don't occasionally vent; but Bill and I have a long history of him telling me a post is personal, and of me willingly pulling it from publication. It doesn't happen very often and usually because of long-term frustration.
The truth is, the overlying principle to my philosophy is not so much of a grand sense of ethics, but more of a decidedly strong dislike of censorship. Censorship can be a good thing when used to save lives, but generally speaking, it is *not* a good thing for any other purpose. When it comes to discussions of ferret husbandry, it is *not* good because it not only prevents the free discussion of ideas, but it also quiets other voices that might be able to give insight. One of those silenced voices might hold the answer we all need, but they have been intimidated -- censored -- by the outrageous voices of a few "idea bullies" who want no other viewpoint but their own been known or discussed. I don't buy into the idea that censorship will help to save ferret lives. I would expect substantial and repeatable evidence offered for me to accept it.
In an open forum, where people can express their viewpoints without fear of personal attack, a free discussion is illuminating, not dangerous. Problems caused by "idea-bullying" are reflected in natural history; the more variation in a species, the better it can respond to change. Those species with little variation tend to fail to respond to change and go extinct. The more ideas we have, the better we can respond to problems in our ferrets.
You don't have to accept other viewpoints and you can certainly debate them, but you can do both without ever resorting to a personal attack. Ever. There are a lot of ways to enforce censorship, including interrupting people, throwing out numerous references to prove a position, name-calling, shutting down a discussion, or even off-list personal emails. They are *all* designed to silence the voice of the person by making it difficult for them to express their ideas, so they are all forms of censorship. I've been all over the world and have met thousands of ferret people; I've yet to met one that didn't know something I yearned to learn. Like pure cream, good ideas "float" to the top of open and fair discussions. You can only have those types of talks when censorship is prohibited. Just my 2-cents. Bob C
From FML