Ed, Eddie, Edweinie, Edwardo.....<sigh> What am I going to do with you?
The "wildlifer" who said mustelid language was primitive to the reporter,
who printed it for Edweinie to read, who redefined it for his own personal
hypothesis in the house that Jack built, was wrong; simple does not mean
primitive.  Ferrets communicate with body language, play faces, odor, sound
and action.  These communications are not any more primitive than a human
smile, a grunt to indicate unhappiness, or that red face with the one vein
popping out on the forehead when someone reads ignorant crap.  Oh, not from
you, Eddie my boy; I am speaking about the CaCaLand Fishing Gestapo and
Idiot Society.  Your posts just get my face red as I laugh.
 
Eddie the L wrote: "Thus, if the ferret's language is primitive, is the
ferret itself primitive?"
 
So I guess the reason Native American's only grunted in the movies was
because they were primitive?  Call 911 and report you lost your mind, Eddie
L.  The ferret is the domesticated descendant of a survivor of millions of
years of natural selection, the polecat.  It has an advanced olfactory
system--one of the best in the Mammalia, an advanced skeletomuscular system
which makes it one of the strongest in the Mammalia, an advanced set of
jaws (and associated musculature) which makes it one of the most efficient
predators in the Mammalia, and a streamlined bowel which makes its
digestion one of the most efficient in the Mammalia.  These are advanced
characters, not primitive.  Edwardinski, even if you consider the ferret's
complex communication system, composed of visual, olfactory, tactile and
auditory signals, to be primitive, it still has no bearing on if the animal
itself is primitive.  Maybe you just forgot.
 
Then Edwardo El L wrote: "Does a primitive animal characteristically attack
the young of other species?  Could this include human young, such as
infants?"
 
You mean like the domestic dog, which kills 20-40 people a year and
horribly wounds hundreds more?  More than half of that number are children
and many instances occur where dogs attack infants, repeatedly biting them
in a single location in a manner which frequently results in death.  Or
maybe you are talking about the house cat, whose unprovoked attacks on
young children leave deep scars and mental anguish?  Or domesticated
cattle, who stomp people to death, including children?  Or the domestic
horse, which has been known to pull off large pieces of flesh from
childrens faces, or just crush and stomp them to death with their hooves.
Or domestic goats, which have been recorded making children the butt of
their jokes, scaring, injuring, and even occasionally Al Goring them?  Or
perhaps the domestic rabbit, which has been documented attacking children,
biting them to the bone and then hiding their eggs?  Or the llama, which I
have personally seen spitting on children, leaving deep and unbearible
mental scars?  Or humans, who kill the children of all species, including
its own?  If attacking children of other species proves an animal is
primitive, then ALL animals (and people) are primitive.  And that includes
any chickens, duck, geese or turkeys chasing children around the barnyard
in their attempts to goose, peck, pinch or otherwise present a bill.  The
chick is in the mail.  Not a peep, ok?
 
Then Edward the Great, L, said, "If the ferret is primitive and attacks the
young of other species, is it at this time of its development, really
domesticated?  Yet?"
 
El Ed, you have just done an amazing thing.  You have led me to believe you
are obtuse, uninformed and perhaps a victim of advanced dementia.  You
simply don't have a clue to what domestication is, do you?  Haven't you
read the stuff I've posted for you?  Haven't you checked out the books I've
recommended for you?  Your argument has just done an amazing thing.  It
has completely thrown out ALL modern scientific studies of domestication;
I suggest you become a professor--clearly you can replace those ignorant
people who teach the subject today.  I should have moved to Seattle to
study domestication under you, Eddie L.  Well, not under you, because I'm
not Gay.  But near you, maybe a manly distance away or so.  A Germanic
manly distance.  But no cheek kissing.  Well, ok, but not when I'm bent
over...
 
Edward, all well-intentioned and brotherly kidding from your acknowledged
friend aside, here is a simplified diagram of your argument:
 
Ferrets have a primitive language, which means ferrets are primitive, which
means ferrets attack children, which means ferrets are not domesticated (or
fully domesticated, yet).
 
See the problem, Edward?  To be able to form a chain argument like this
one, you first have to be able to construct links between each element in
the chain.  You are not even close.  I can construct a similar argument:
 
Edward doesn't understand issues of domestication, which means Edward is
uneducated or obtuse or both, which means Edward is primitive, which means
Edward attacks children, which means Edward is not domesticated (or fully
domesticated, yet).  If it isn't true of you, why do you assume it is true
of ferrets?
 
You NEED to have evidence of linkage PRIOR to linking one event to another.
You MUST assume any event is unassociated UNLESS you can PROVE a linkage.
If you don't do that, Edward, you run the risk of someone who is NOT your
friend, making fun of you in a cruel and heartless way, far unlike the
good-natured kidding I have done today.
 
Edward, when you post your ideas about semi-domesticated ferrets with a
lack of evidence and uncorrelated events, most people tend to think of you
as a crackpot or malcontent.  It taints your good side and harms your
ability to give out good information.  As your friend, I would be happy to
look at your "science" posts and review them for you prior to posting them
on the FML.  It might save a lot of space on the FML if you didn't post
misinformation, and I (and others) didn't have to post rebuttals.  Anyone
else want to offer a review for Edward in case I get busy?
 
Bob C and 16 Mo' Fertloops O' Fun
[Posted in FML issue 2746]