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]