Q: I have been reading some of the early references you have mentioned,
   and they seem terrible. How can you trust them?
 
A: How can I trust you?
 
The major difference between early writers and the more modern ones is the
practice of references (or notes, end notes, chapter notes, etc.).  I have
said many times that if someone writes a book and they fail to inform the
reader of the source of information, they are either guilty of some degree
of plagerism, their information is not to be trusted or they are afraid you
will try and look it up.
 
To cite two ferret-related examples.  The African or Lybian ferret origin
has cited by many authors, who usually gave the correct references even if
the orignial writers were wrong.  However, this somehow got confused with
Egypt and a single heiroglyphic in a single book.  Later authors cited the
book but never gave it as a reference, and in 5 to 10 years, the rumor
became an accepted myth.  When it comes to science, I am VERY conservative,
but I am willing to bet almost anything I own that ferrets were NOT
domesticated in Egypt.  The evidence is absolutely overwealming that it was
someplace else; my favorite choices being Spain, Eastern Europe, or
Southeastern Europe.  BTW, I have a copy of the 'glyph, and it is probably a
mongoose.  Yet, even in newly printed books and FAQs, Egypt is still being
bandied about as a possibility.
 
The CaCa Fish and Gestapo is another example of how to cite themselve as
experts or nothing at all.  I won't go into detail here because I have do so
at great length in the last few weeks.  But the same thing is true as above,
if you say something as a fact, back it up with self-generated (and
explained) data, or cite the source.
 
So back to your question, what can I trust?  I trust the stuff that can be
true and toss the stuff that isn't.  The old writers were not trying to lie;
they reported stuff they thought was correct.  For example, I just read a
1905 paper on polecats, and it said they would curl up like balls and roll
down hills while escaping.  It also said they would defend themselves to the
death, finghting as best they could the entire time.  I trust the author was
telling what he thought to be the truth, but obviously, polecats don't
escape by rolling up in a ball!  Does that mean the second part is
incorrect?  Nope.  You just have to read it and be selective.  If the stuff
doesn't conflict with modern findingd, it is probably correct.  With
reservations.
 
Truthfully, I have a much harder time with finding falsehoods in new
materials, especially statements that are made to "help" the ferret cause.
The hyperbole farted out of ferret fanatics is just as offensive as that
from those domesticated burros at the fish and gestapo.  Lies are lies, and
they have a habit of being thrown back at you, hurting your cause worse than
before.
 
In truth, ferrets have severely injured babies, and have been involved in
two deaths.  They can live in a feral state, and even do well.  They are not
completely litterbox trainable.  They have short lives and tend to die from
cancers.  Once the truth is known, and accepted, then you can point out dogs
were also present in the deaths and may have been a contributing factor, as
well as the parent's own negligence, and that attacks by ferrets on babies
is far lower than other household pets, and usually less severe.  You can
prove feral ferrets only live marginally in Europe, and have only been
successful in colonizing an island that totally lacked competitors to the
ferret (New Zealand).  You can point out a year with a ferret is like 6
years with a dog in terms of pleasure, and 20 with a cat.  You can never
argue the litterbox thing, but you can say, "Yes, but the box is half FULL!"
The point is, you can argue truth, but who can defend even the most innocent
and well-meaning lie?
 
Half-truths and rumor disguised as fact should guide you in what you think
is a good reference; if they have them, they are no good.  The old writers
wrote what they thought was right; but many new writers spin it and
generally turn truths into lies.  I can easily trust someone who made a
mistake, but how can you trust anyone who spreads rumors as truths, or
refuses to accept the truth for what it is?  Everything they say is now
suspect, and you can't trust any part of it.
 
Bob C and the 17 MO Non-spun Furits now warily watching for Dog and Cat
lovers of any type for those rude but true comments  8-o
[Posted in FML issue 1914]