Bob's got a degree in zoology, and certainly the field he is going into
required a strong science background.  Meanwhile, he's in one of those
doctoral programs in which there is not a separate masters earned first.
That's actually NOT an unusual structure; folks who are familiar with grad
schools know those appear here and there in multiple disciplines, even
within the same university as offers separate degrees in other fields.
Some programs handle it as a completely separate thing, some have both at
once, and some just award it to folks in the doctoral program at some
point.  Steve found his masters just stuffed in his department mailbox
one day; the doctorate involved more pomp.
 
Now, M., you and I KNOW how often you got in touch with me when you were
trying on Physical Anthro and Forensics Anthro before you returned to
English Literature.  Twice you passed on some really great webpages to me
and I appreciate that.  The rest of the time you were asking a number of
science questions because you were trying on portions of anthro which
require a good science background and trying to make up for studies you
didn't have, which is one heck of a heavy load to carry.  Nor are these two
or the related zoology studies (Bob's program) the only aspect of anthro
requiring science backgrounds.  Botany is required by those who go into
paleohorticulture ( a fascinating field -- maybe someday I'll get to spend
some time looking at the topic in depth), and a registered dietician degree
is often part of the background for studies in nutritional anthro ( an
exciting and -- last I heard -- under-populated field; too bad I stink at
bio-chem and languages since some of this really is of interest as are
aspects of food history).  So, I guess what I am trying to say, is that
while it is true that Bob doesn't have a medical degree, and doesn't have
as much ferret nursing experience as some of us do, it is also true that
he's got a zoology and anatomy background which are strong, had to study a
number of other related science and math topics to get into what he is
studying, and even more importantly he's got a LOT of curiosity so he's
always learning new things.  The last is essential.
 
Steve and I have 18 years with ferrets behind us and between us we've got
a very strong smattering of sciences -- okay, a good deal more than a
smattering together, and we tend to find most of Bob's posts to be useful
and informative and find the references he lists to be just as useful.  Is
he able to make a mistake or have an omission now and them?  Sure.  He's
only human like the rest of us.  Surprise!
 
If I were an FML member who didn't have enough science background to
respect what he says would I stop thinking about his comments or learning
from him?  I sure hope not.  He teaches us a lot now; I'd hate to think
that I'd stop learning under other circumstances.  ***I guess THAT is why I
am writing this letter; it would be a shame if people stopped learning from
someone due to another's implications.***
 
Anyway, there's nothing at all wrong with disagreeing with someone.  Just
today I reminded Bob that chocolate for ferrets with cardiomyopathy or
hidden cardiomyopathy might be a real health risk.  There IS something
wrong with dismissing someone's expertise, background, or references simply
because he's not a favored friend, and something more wrong with making
implications.  Sorry, Bill, but I felt that the post over-stepped the line
for personal insults due to the implications within it.  That's only my
opinion, of course.
[Posted in FML issue 3028]