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]