crazy theory(concerning T.blondi chiefely)

orkimedies

Arachnosquire
Old Timer
Joined
Jan 6, 2007
Messages
102
ok so bare with me here.

from what i have gathered reading books while bored at work coupled with what i already know i understand the following to be true.

bugs(broad generalization here) absorb oxygen through pores in thier carapace/book lungs, this limits thier size as if they were too large they would suffocate.

millions of years ago bugs were much much larger (300 pound scorpions!)
as well as this there was 300% more oxygen in the earth's atmosphere to allow for greater sized bugs.

from what i have gathered T. blondi's that are wild caught are larger than captive bred blondi's, this could be because they are from a more heavily forested region of the earth with higher levels of oxygen.

and so here is my idea, suppose you created a sealed environtment/biosphere type deal and regulated the oxygen in the air by what ever means (i do not know how this would be achieved, oxygen pumps/canisters? lots of plants?)

and you increased the oxygen vastly (say 1000%?) and raised generation after generation of Blondi's in it, as well as other things (if you are going to go through all that trouble might as well aye?)

would the spiders grow larger than is standard for thier species is the question on my mind, this may also have to do with diet as well, purhapse several groups living on several diets.

just a thought.

on another note wouldnt it be cool if a bug evolved lungs?
 

P. Novak

ArachnoGod
Old Timer
Joined
Sep 12, 2005
Messages
6,234
Hm, I personally don't think they'd grow much larger because it'll probably take an evolutionary process for them to grow larger then what they are, even with all the oxygen, which could take millions of years.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, anyone..
 

mcy

Arachnoknight
Old Timer
Joined
Jul 21, 2006
Messages
180
maybe genetic engineering but otherwise a natural evolution which takes quite a bit longer than a human lifespan
 

Midnightrdr456

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
1,088
and probably because when they WC blondis they probably look for the largest they can find
 

Pociemon

Arachnoangel
Old Timer
Joined
Mar 25, 2007
Messages
911
They captive bread species does also search for the biggest thing the can i guess. My T. Apophysis who is just a sling took a cricket it´s own size today when offered a worm and a cricket, and it just is hungry all the time, because it kills everything put in front of it{D
 

Cheshire

Arachnoking
Old Timer
Joined
Jul 7, 2005
Messages
3,160
I wouldn't think the oxygen content of the rainforest has a whole lot to do with the size of the blondi. The robber crab, the largest land dwelling invertebrate in the world lives on seashores far away from the rainforests. It's much larger than T. blondi.

I think the oxygen production from the rainforests has been greatly over-exaggerated. The oceans produce much more oxygen than the rainforests do.
 

NBond1986

Arachnosquire
Old Timer
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
148
I wouldn't think the oxygen content of the rainforest has a whole lot to do with the size of the blondi. The robber crab, the largest land dwelling invertebrate in the world lives on seashores far away from the rainforests. It's much larger than T. blondi.

I think the oxygen production from the rainforests has been greatly over-exaggerated. The oceans produce much more oxygen than the rainforests do.
you are wrong on one account. The robber crab is a completely different animal, so naturally it is going to be differently sized. secondly, it doesnt matter that they are farr from rainforests......what matters is the altitude from sea level. Both the crab and the T. blondi are at sea level (yes, the Amazon basin is almost at sea level, with slight variances).....THIS is what accounts for the oxygen content....not the biome. (sure biomes might make a very miniscule difference.....but not enough to have a significant effect in this case)


now, in reference to the first question: This is an experiment I plan to do as a PhD candidate in the next few years. However, raising the oxygen content to 1000% of what it is now would easily cause spontaneous combustion. Along with the oxygen there are several other atmospheric gases that ALSO have to be added into the picture. Sediment analysis from fossils can tell us what the atmospheric content was during the era of giant inverts.
As for evolution......I don't think that arachnids have evolved all that much structurally since their "giant" days. I think that they reached their peak of perfection (evolutionarily) long long long ago!

I don't see why this experiment wouldn't work.....but I also can't say that I know it will! :?
 

cacoseraph

ArachnoGod
Old Timer
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
8,330
actually, i think you could do almost 1000% normal o2 levels, as it is normally only something like 8-15% of the air... with nitrogen making up something like 72-75%. you probably still need all freaky trace elements as Nbond was saying... but most trace elements are just that... barely there in air

i've always wondered what hyperbaric (like, pressure greater than sea level / STP) oxygen supply would do. Theraphosa blondi michaeljacksoni
 

kyrga

Arachnobaron
Old Timer
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
321
This is just my own hypothesizing, and I have no experience in anythign like this, but IF oxygen has an effect, and IF CB are smaller than WB because of that reason, then it wouldn't take millions of years to "engineer" bigger CB blondis. I mean, CB blondis have been around for what... 50 years (I'm just guessing here)? Correct me if I'm wrong, it just doesn't seem like people have really been keeping Ts all that long, I'd say the hobby itself can't be more than 100 years old at most. So, IF they shrank that much in such a short ammount of time, then they should be able to grow at least that much.
 

matthias

Arachnobaron
Old Timer
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
393
actually, i think you could do almost 1000% normal o2 levels, as it is normally only something like 8-15% of the air... with nitrogen making up something like 72-75%.
Ok, our atmosphere is ~20% Oxygen, and the highest O2 levels we know aobut was between 23-25%. Anything much more than than and any spark at all (even static discharge) can cause fires. So yes 10 times the normal level of Oxygen would not only cause Oxygen poisening but also start fires.

I think the idea of raising the levels has merit but maybe just putting live plants in with the Blondi would be enough.
 

matthias

Arachnobaron
Old Timer
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
393
This is just my own hypothesizing, and I have no experience in anythign like this, but IF oxygen has an effect, and IF CB are smaller than WB because of that reason, then it wouldn't take millions of years to "engineer" bigger CB blondis. I mean, CB blondis have been around for what... 50 years (I'm just guessing here)? Correct me if I'm wrong, it just doesn't seem like people have really been keeping Ts all that long, I'd say the hobby itself can't be more than 100 years old at most. So, IF they shrank that much in such a short ammount of time, then they should be able to grow at least that much.

I think what he is saying is their size could be influenced by the environment. Like how the U.S. is growing fatter/larger. This is not a genetic shift but an environmental one, i.e. we eat more stuff that is bad for us.
So if CB's average 10" to 12", and this might increase that average to 12" to 14", and over time if only the largest were mated then you could see a genetic disposition toward larger spiders.
 

Cheshire

Arachnoking
Old Timer
Joined
Jul 7, 2005
Messages
3,160
you are wrong on one account. The robber crab is a completely different animal, so naturally it is going to be differently sized. secondly, it doesnt matter that they are farr from rainforests......what matters is the altitude from sea level. Both the crab and the T. blondi are at sea level (yes, the Amazon basin is almost at sea level, with slight variances).....THIS is what accounts for the oxygen content....not the biome. (sure biomes might make a very miniscule difference.....but not enough to have a significant effect in this case)
Well, no shit.

With only a slight difference in wording (a longer, un-needed drawn out explanation) you're doing nothing but re-wording my own post and throwing it back at me.

The reader was making his hypothesis under the assumption that the rainforests were richer in oxygen than any other part of the earth because news articles authored for the general public's consumption make a huge deal about how much oxygen the rainforests produce.

I pointed this out by reminding him that most of the oxygen we breathe actually comes from the ocean.

Following the logic of the OP, I found an environment that should have had a signifficantly less oxygen content (again, OP's logic) and found a larger invertebrate than T. blondi.

Any halfway intelligent person should have inferred that the rainforest biome had little to do with anything and that there must be other factors in play other than biome alone.

you are wrong on one account. The robber crab is a completely different animal, so naturally it is going to be differently sized.
Now, I don't know how the hell you got the impression that I thought the robber crab and T. blondi were even similar. They're both invertebrates. They both push the upper limits of size of land dwelling invertebrates. That is what tied them together in my post. Nothing more.

Even though they acquire oxygen in different ways (tarantulas with booklungs and robber crabs with modified gills), oxygen is still believed to be a limiting factor for size at least as far as the robber crab is concerned.

I could point out the fact that Birgus latro has a clearly defined head, thorax and abdomen, 10 legs instead of 8, maxillipeds, compound stalked eyes, a two chambered stomach, that B. latro's fertilized eggs are incubated on swimmerettes as well as all the other little differences that put B. latro in a completely different frigging subphylum than T. blondi, but that would be a bit pretentious wouldn't it?

Now, as for your experiment...

...oxygen is believed to be the limiting factor on the size of land dwelling invertebrates. Oxygen out of all the gasses is the one that plays the largest part in metabolism, so if any gas would be a factor in the size of invertebrates...it would certianly be oxygen.

Experiments by entomologist Jon Harrison at the University of Arizona seem to support the hypothesis that higher oxygen levels are at least partially responsible for gigantism in insects.

However, at least one experiment also contradicts the idea that oxygen is soley responsible. In one experiment, Harrison discovered that grasshopper nymphs were more sensitive to oxygen deprivation than adults. The nymphs started to kick off around 15% oxygen and the adults did fine well below 5%.

There are many other examples of animals that displayed gigantism that lived and died for reasons that were independant of oxygen levels.

Oxygen was probably a helping factor, but was definitely not the sole factor in the age of gigantic invertebrates.

Since you obviously seem to think that I don't know the difference between a crustacean, an arachnid and a hole in the ground, feel free to google any of the information contained within this post.

You would only need to bump up the oxygen content to 35-40% or so for your test group to simulate the ancient atmosphere.

I would suggest a species that is much easier to rear in captivity, such as Lasiodora parayhabana. Since these are much easier to breed than T. blondi, you would see results much sooner.

I'd also reccomend actually finding and reading the research that's already being done on the subject before making a hypothesis of your own.
 
Last edited:

M.F.Bagaturov

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Jun 20, 2004
Messages
1,005
HEllo!
As my 5 cents I would suggest that the raising of the oxygen level just leads to the fatal rezult much obviousely than encreasing the size...
This just no looking at that the average size is already "written in" the genome of any species and can't be extremely powered by the environment changes.
 

NBond1986

Arachnosquire
Old Timer
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
148
Well, no shit.

With only a slight difference in wording (a longer, un-needed drawn out explanation) you're doing nothing but re-wording my own post and throwing it back at me.
nope, read it again.

The reader was making his hypothesis under the assumption that the rainforests were richer in oxygen than any other part of the earth because news articles authored for the general public's consumption make a huge deal about how much oxygen the rainforests produce.

I pointed this out by reminding him that most of the oxygen we breathe actually comes from the ocean.
Well...DUH! Of course most of our oxygen comes from the ocean.....it covers most of our planet! That doesn't mean that it is RICHER in oxygen.

Following the logic of the OP, I found an environment that should have had a signifficantly less oxygen content (again, OP's logic) and found a larger invertebrate than T. blondi.

Any halfway intelligent person should have inferred that the rainforest biome had little to do with anything and that there must be other factors in play other than biome alone.
I admire your cheap shots at my intelligence.

Now, I don't know how the hell you got the impression that I thought the robber crab and T. blondi were even similar. They're both invertebrates. They both push the upper limits of size of land dwelling invertebrates. That is what tied them together in my post. Nothing more.

Even though they acquire oxygen in different ways (tarantulas with booklungs and robber crabs with modified gills), oxygen is still believed to be a limiting factor for size at least as far as the robber crab is concerned.

I could point out the fact that Birgus latro has a clearly defined head, thorax and abdomen, 10 legs instead of 8, maxillipeds, compound stalked eyes, a two chambered stomach, that B. latro's fertilized eggs are incubated on swimmerettes as well as all the other little differences that put B. latro in a completely different frigging subphylum than T. blondi, but that would be a bit pretentious wouldn't it?
While [what I assume to be] your googling skills are impressive, I honestly still don't think it matters. Two different animals. Evolution has treated them very differently. Pretentious? No my dear, not at all. I hardly EVER mention this to anyone in an agruement.....actually you're the first.... I got my bacherlors degree in biology at the age of 19 and I'm starting in a PhD program this coming fall at the age of 20. I'd find it hard for anyone to come across as pretentious. Also, I think you're taking my argument a bit too seriously here. Calm yourself.


Now, as for your experiment...

...oxygen is believed to be the limiting factor on the size of land dwelling invertebrates. Oxygen out of all the gasses is the one that plays the largest part in metabolism, so if any gas would be a factor in the size of invertebrates...it would certianly be oxygen.

Experiments by entomologist Jon Harrison at the University of Arizona seem to support the hypothesis that higher oxygen levels are at least partially responsible for gigantism in insects.

However, at least one experiment also contradicts the idea that oxygen is soley responsible. In one experiment, Harrison discovered that grasshopper nymphs were more sensitive to oxygen deprivation than adults. The nymphs started to kick off around 15% oxygen and the adults did fine well below 5%.

There are many other examples of animals that displayed gigantism that lived and died for reasons that were independant of oxygen levels.

Oxygen was probably a helping factor, but was definitely not the sole factor in the age of gigantic invertebrates.
I am VERY well aware of studies by Harrison, J.W. Buchanan, Willard Young, Alan Rhodes, A.E.R. Taylor, K. Connor, and many others......it would take a page to list.
OF COURSE IT WASN'T THE ONLY FACTOR. What am I, a gorilla scientist? There are several factors involved. But c'mon.....I'll save that for my dissertation.


Since you obviously seem to think that I don't know the difference between a crustacean, an arachnid and a hole in the ground, feel free to google any of the information contained within this post.
Once again, overreacting to my statement and putting words in my mouth. Can we just discuss this and not take cheap shots at one another? You accuse me of being some sort of a judgemental ogre!


You would only need to bump up the oxygen content to 35-40% or so for your test group to simulate the ancient atmosphere.

I would suggest a species that is much easier to rear in captivity, such as Lasiodora parayhabana. Since these are much easier to breed than T. blondi, you would see results much sooner.

I'd also reccomend actually finding and reading the research that's already being done on the subject before making a hypothesis of your own.
I sincerely thank you for your suggestion of using L. parahybana. I have found that my Lassies do grow quite quickly and are pretty hardy. Breeding, yes, is a tad easier with these guys.....especially the numbers they put out. {D

Ah, and I will continue to read! It doesn't matter how well read you are, it seems that there is always someone who thinks otherwise. Thanks for the inspiration!

And I hope that we can continue to discuss this in a more civilized manner. That is, if you're willing. I'm sure there is a lot I can learn from you.

-Neshan
 

Cheshire

Arachnoking
Old Timer
Joined
Jul 7, 2005
Messages
3,160
nope, read it again.
Why don't you explain to me how it's different?

Being at sea level may mean there is a higher oxygen concentration (probably because of Boyle's law...chemistry isn't my subject), however giant inverts are found places higher than sea level. Again...being at sea level is completely irrelevant.

Personally, I don't think oxygen was the *main* factor...just a facilitator.

Well...DUH! Of course most of our oxygen comes from the ocean.....it covers most of our planet! That doesn't mean that it is RICHER in oxygen.
Who's putting words in who's mouth now?

The reason oceanic inverts are larger than land inverts is because water will support their massive bulk. Nothing directly to do with oxygen content. I was only following the OP's line of logic by pointing out that there are giant inverts in places vastly different than rainforests.

That being said, the amount of oxygen that water can hold is actually less than that of air. The air you and I are breathing is roughly 20% oxygen and (IIRC) water can only hold about 1% oxygen.

None of this applies to the robber crab since it will actually drown if submerged in water for an extended period.

You are both putting words in my mouth and taking my posts completely out of context.

I admire your cheap shots at my intelligence.
Who's the one who's implying that I don't know the difference between a crab and a spider?

Besides...

Following the logic of the OP, I found an environment that should have had a signifficantly less oxygen content (again, OP's logic) and found a larger invertebrate than T. blondi.

Any halfway intelligent person should have inferred that the rainforest biome had little to do with anything and that there must be other factors in play other than biome alone.
That was not even a personal attack. You came to the conclusion I explained in the post. You're at least halfway intelligent.

Congratulations.

While [what I assume to be] your googling skills are impressive, I honestly still don't think it matters.
Yes...I google. I'm actually researching now for a long term project on the very topic of evolution and some of the research actually falls within this neighborhood. I also read online journal articles because entomology is something I'm interested in. I don't have access to the university library yet, so I have to rely on .edu sites on the internet so I can study in my spare time. I currently have a library of about 400 articles printed out on printer paper and plan on starting a *real* library here in the fall.

Would you like to see the relevant research I have so far?

This amounts to nothing but an ad hominem attack.

Two different animals. Evolution has treated them very differently.
No arguement. We are not arguing about how closely T. blondi and B. latro are related. I am not saying that the way they extract oxygen is even similar. We are arguing whether or not the oxygen content of the air is responsible for their size.

Their physiology is vastly different. Tarantulas rely on booklungs, the animal in question relies on gills to facilitate the exchange of oxygen. To answer the question, we'd need to see which method is more effective and which animal uses oxygen more efficiently. I don't have access to that research.

However, the limiting factor in the size of both these animals *should* be the same.

Again, something I touched on in the post you're replying to.

Pretentious? No my dear, not at all. I hardly EVER mention this to anyone in an agruement.....actually you're the first.... I got my bacherlors degree in biology at the age of 19 and I'm starting in a PhD program this coming fall at the age of 20. I'd find it hard for anyone to come across as pretentious.
See? Pretentious.

If you never mention that in an arguement, why are you mentioning it now?

Technically, you're throwing it out there once every thirty posts.


I am VERY well aware of studies by Harrison, J.W. Buchanan, Willard Young, Alan Rhodes, A.E.R. Taylor, K. Connor, and many others......it would take a page to list.
OF COURSE IT WASN'T THE ONLY FACTOR. What am I, a gorilla scientist? There are several factors involved. But c'mon.....I'll save that for my dissertation.
What other factors were there?

Once again, overreacting to my statement and putting words in my mouth. Can we just discuss this and not take cheap shots at one another? You accuse me of being some sort of a judgemental ogre!
You are taking my posts out of context to make my arguement appear to be something it isn't.

Why you feel the need to explain to me that a tarantula and a crab are two different animals (even after I give you the explanation of why they are) completely escapes me. I have my theories, but feel no need to share them.

I never said they were closely related...instead I simply pointed out that B. latro is bigger in size than T. blondi and lives in an environment that has vastly different factors that would effect the size of the animal.

To date, I have actually given far more information than you on the subject to back up my opinion and you have given next to nothing and still feel the need feed your fantasy that we're arguing about how closely T. blondi and B. latro are related and not about what role an atmosphere richer in oxygen played in the evolutionary development of the giant inverts of the ancient world.

Not only that, you are purposely taking my posts out of context and there is no way I can have any level of respect for someone who does that.

I sincerely thank you for your suggestion of using L. parahybana. I have found that my Lassies do grow quite quickly and are pretty hardy. Breeding, yes, is a tad easier with these guys.....especially the numbers they put out. {D
Yup...they breed like catholics. They're also a bit more forgiving in the husbandry department, too. I think they may even grow a bit faster.

Ah, and I will continue to read! It doesn't matter how well read you are, it seems that there is always someone who thinks otherwise. Thanks for the inspiration!

And I hope that we can continue to discuss this in a more civilized manner. That is, if you're willing. I'm sure there is a lot I can learn from you.

-Neshan
Keep on trucking ;)
 
Last edited:

Talkenlate04

ArachnoGod
Old Timer
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
8,662
Thats really weird, how did my response get above the one that I read and responded to? :confused:
 

NBond1986

Arachnosquire
Old Timer
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
148
Why don't you explain to me how it's different?
nevermind. that's the least important part of this thread/discussion. Perhaps I've been misreading your robber crab example all along. Time to reconsider my stance.....

Being at sea level may mean there is a higher oxygen concentration (probably because of Boyle's law...chemistry isn't my subject), however giant inverts are found places higher than sea level. Again...being at sea level is completely irrelevant.

Personally, I don't think oxygen was the *main* factor...just a facilitator.
Yes, it's Boyle's law. Chem is my subject....unfortunately, lol. Bio majors have to take enough chem to fulfill a minor.
Yes, a facilitator indeed. Definitely not the main factor.
Perhaps I've been misreading your robber crab example all along. It doesn't even matter anymore.

The reason oceanic inverts are larger than land inverts is because water will support their massive bulk. Nothing directly to do with oxygen content. I was only following the OP's line of logic by pointing out that there are giant inverts in places vastly different than rainforests.

That being said, the amount of oxygen that water can hold is actually less than that of air. The air you and I are breathing is roughly 20% oxygen and (IIRC) water can only hold about 1% oxygen.

None of this applies to the robber crab since it will actually drown if submerged in water for an extended period.

You are both putting words in my mouth and taking my posts completely out of context.
Point well made. But you see....that's what the research is for. Much of what you say is speculation. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with what you say. I agree with most of it. You're not stupid....in fact I admire your intelligence.

Who's the one who's implying that I don't know the difference between a crab and a spider?
I didn't. But that's what we call a misunderstanding. Let's put it behind us, shall we?


That was not even a personal attack. You came to the conclusion I explained in the post. You're at least halfway intelligent.

Congratulations.
Flattered.

Yes...I google. I'm actually researching now for a long term project on the very topic of evolution and some of the research actually falls within this neighborhood. I also read online journal articles because entomology is something I'm interested in. I don't have access to the university library yet, so I have to rely on .edu sites on the internet so I can study in my spare time. I currently have a library of about 400 articles printed out on printer paper and plan on starting a *real* library here in the fall.

Would you like to see the relevant research I have so far?
Google is an incredible tool. I really respect you for doing this as a "spare time" sort of thing. That takes a lot of dedication. We need more hobbyists like you. I do have access to several university libraries, and have for many years. If you would like anything, please don't hesitate to ask! I'd be more than happy to send you a particular paper.


This amounts to nothing but an ad hominem attack.
I admit, it was. I appologize. My boredom sometimes gets the better of my debating skills.


No arguement. We are not arguing about how closely T. blondi and B. latro are related. I am not saying that the way they extract oxygen is even similar. We are arguing whether or not the oxygen content of the air is responsible for their size.

Their physiology is vastly different. Tarantulas rely on booklungs, the animal in question relies on gills to facilitate the exchange of oxygen. To answer the question, we'd need to see which method is more effective and which animal uses oxygen more efficiently. I don't have access to that research.
Hmm... I see. Well, give me a paper you desire, and I'll see if it's available to me.

However, the limiting factor in the size of both these animals *should* be the same.
AH!....*SHOULD*
Key word.
I think that this is what I was looking for when I kept stating that they are two different organisms. We don't know that their size limiting factors are the same or not. That's what I meant. I thought you had caught on, but apparently a misunderstanding ensued. But again, let's forget about that example.

See? Pretentious.

If you never mention that in an arguement, why are you mentioning it now?

Technically, you're throwing it out there once every thirty posts.
Hmmm....actually, I don't use AB very often at all. But I'm a frequent and serious participator in several other forums. One example is venomlist. I'm also on ATS once in a blue moon. I'm a serious contributor to several smaller forums that aren't well known. So.....in this case it's more like 1 in 2000+

Also, this doesn't count the multiple discussions I have offline. The computer isn't my only world you know. I'm in academia most of the time.



What other factors were there?
This is NOT a shot at you...believe me. I'm just going to teach you something. I've been around MS and PhD candidates for a loooong time. I've traveled to Canada, Bolivia, and some Pacific islands on marine invertibrate ecological research. There is one thing that you NEVER do when you are about to undertake a serious research project. And that is: share.
Your information, your sources, your methods, your results, your theories, your ANYTHING.....should not be shared until after the fact. This, added to my secretive academic upbringing.....it's a bad combination. With any scholarly work...... no one except your reseach associates, should know very much about what you do....until it is published.
That's just my view and the view of many others. There are, of course, many who differ on the subject.


I never said they were closely related...instead I simply pointed out that B. latro is bigger in size than T. blondi and lives in an environment that has vastly different factors that would effect the size of the animal.
Exactly. Since we don't know precisely what affects the sizes of these animals....it is almost like comparing apples to oranges in MY opinion.....so please don't be offended. We're all entitled to disagree.

To date, I have actually given far more information than you on the subject to back up my opinion and you have given next to nothing and still feel the need feed your fantasy that we're arguing about how closely T. blondi and B. latro are related and not about what role an atmosphere richer in oxygen played in the evolutionary development of the giant inverts of the ancient world.
It is your choice to give all that valuable information. Sure, people can look it up, but you make it just that much easier to attain. All your hard work.
By the way....back up your opinion? Maybe the robbercrab debate has shrouded over the fact that I agree with most of what you say. I think you're just thinking about the robbercrab, and not realizing that I never once argued with anything else! I agree wholeheartedly with most of what you say.
As you might recall from my first retort:
NBond1986 said:
you are wrong on one account.
Nothing more, nothing less. But I have even taken THAT comment back. So, I really don't disagree with anything anymore.

Not only that, you are purposely taking my posts out of context and there is no way I can have any level of respect for someone who does that.
Hmmmm....poor me.
....c'est la vie....




Well, despite your lack of respect for my existence, I am still willing to help you out if you need any papers. For someone who is so involved and dedicated to the hobby, it is a completely worthy cause. It's not everyday that you come across someone who is more than a half decent writer with a flare of interest for nature. Please let me know if there are any papers missing in your collection that I can try to find for you.
Seriously, I'd be more than happy. :)
 
Top