has any one else!

[nina]

OK - brief silence while we all look up poikilotherm <g>. I assume it's like ectotherm? I think I see what you're saying, Ed, and strictly speaking you are right, but I still stand by my earlier posting that your statement worded a bit sloppily and was well open to misinterpretation (even though you never said that you hibernated them or suggested that others should). Anyway, it's all clear now, so no problem.

[EJ]

My statement is only open to misinterpretation if you have the mindset that hibernation is a controlled function and it is a nicessity. It is not... it is a reaction. The whole reason for my example was to show that it is a reaction that all reptiles display. Do all reptiles hibernate? No but all reptiles will slow down as a function of their unique physiology.

My original statement was an observation and a report... how was it written sloppy?

Originally Posted by nina

OK - brief silence while we all look up poikilotherm <g>. I assume it's like ectotherm? I think I see what you're saying, Ed, and strictly speaking you are right, but I still stand by my earlier posting that your statement worded a bit sloppily and was well open to misinterpretation (even though you never said that you hibernated them or suggested that others should). Anyway, it's all clear now, so no problem.

[nina]

Hi Ed,

OK, my last posting on this issue of misinterpretation. I know that you know what you meant, but the way you phrased your sentence ("This is actually a lead in to hibernation... most tortoises I've kept are capable of hibernating... including the above mentioned tortoises.") without qualifying it as you did subsequently by saying that you weren't recommending hibernation, could have been interpreted as you saying it was OK to hibernate these species. You did say later that what you meant was "It is not detrimental if the animals are cooled as long as the average temperature is acceptable for survival." but to say something is a 'lead in' to hibernation did imply (not 'state' but 'imply) that these torts could be hibernated.

I'm not getting at you, Ed, and I know you didn't intend for your posting to be misinterpreted, but if people read it and misinterpreted it (even PAWSPLUS who defended you said "I think EJ was just unclear") then maybe you have to accept that even if you didn't intend it to be misinterpreted it was misinterpreted, and perhaps - just perhaps <g> - this was due to your writing being less than crystal clear on this one, isolated occasion <vbg>. As I've seen you say in the past, Ed, none of us are perfect, and if I thought that something I wrote had been misinterpreted by several people I'd certainly accept that I might have been less than clear - or sloppy in my phrasing - and make a simple apology for any misunderstanding (and I have done that myself, and I have made those apologies <g>).

Nina

[EJ]

What I meant is exactly what I said. Sorry you misunderstood my point. It stands as written without any change.

Normally, I would say my point was not clear it it was not but in this circumstance I could not make it any clearer.

The second point is that it appears unclear more because of mindset than in the way it was phrased.

This too is my last post on the topic unless there are any questions which I would be glad to entertain.

Originally Posted by nina

Hi Ed,

OK, my last posting on this issue of misinterpretation. I know that you know what you meant, but the way you phrased your sentence ("This is actually a lead in to hibernation... most tortoises I've kept are capable of hibernating... including the above mentioned tortoises.") without qualifying it as you did subsequently by saying that you weren't recommending hibernation, could have been interpreted as you saying it was OK to hibernate these species. You did say later that what you meant was "It is not detrimental if the animals are cooled as long as the average temperature is acceptable for survival." but to say something is a 'lead in' to hibernation did imply (not 'state' but 'imply) that these torts could be hibernated.

I'm not getting at you, Ed, and I know you didn't intend for your posting to be misinterpreted, but if people read it and misinterpreted it (even PAWSPLUS who defended you said "I think EJ was just unclear") then maybe you have to accept that even if you didn't intend it to be misinterpreted it was misinterpreted, and perhaps - just perhaps <g> - this was due to your writing being less than crystal clear on this one, isolated occasion <vbg>. As I've seen you say in the past, Ed, none of us are perfect, and if I thought that something I wrote had been misinterpreted by several people I'd certainly accept that I might have been less than clear - or sloppy in my phrasing - and make a simple apology for any misunderstanding (and I have done that myself, and I have made those apologies <g>).

Nina