I've been reading the many posts re: Edward Lipinski's observed predatory
ferret, as well as the multitude of "logical" replies that have since
flooded through the mailings in an attempt to see what exactly has people
so riled up.
 
I don't get it.
 
I've read his two latest posts several times, and while I agree with those
of you who replied as such that that one ferret is a rather small sampling,
I find very little "fault" with either of his posts.  His theories are
posted as either questions (Is it possible?) or his own ruminations and
ponderances (I believe).  In particular, the observations he makes that are
broader than the one observed ferret are mostly presented as hypotheses.
 
Finally, on one line in particular, he posts that "One thing here: we don't
know if it's inate curiosity or a surge to kill that's motaviting the
ferret." He questions his own theories, thinks and to me appears to be
trying to inspire others to consider the possibilities or at least debate
them in a rational manner.
 
Now, I'm not saying he's right or wrong, but I will consider what he has
to say without hammering and twisting his presentation.  Just as I will
consider the replies to his posts.
 
Food for thought : Go back and read my post from the 3/26 issue.  Here is an
excerpt from one response.  (BTW, thanks to those who replied).
 
"[...]when ferrets was wild (feral), they would steal eggs in this
manner[...]"
 
Thanks for your time,
Glen Miller
Morgane - "Treat?"
Merlyn - "Can't we just get alo-yawwwwn.  Zzzzzzz"
[Posted in FML issue 2259]