Usumbara X starburst baboon (P. murinus)

[Professor T]

Originally posted by Atrax

That said, I think the entire statement "the hobby is in it's infancy" is moot and impossible to back up. Of course, I personally wouldn't agree that scientific studies of T's are in their infancy. The studies obviously began a very long time ago and still go on so...



Atrax

Atrax,

The statement "the hobby is in its infancy" is moot! Of course you know moot means "open to argument", or you would have never used it in a sentance.

I stated some great facts about T breeding being in its infancy compared to other pet hobbies. I believe just the opposite from you, that it is impossible to compare what is known about T breeding to dogs, birds, snakes, lizards, and fish. That doesn't mean T breeding hasn't come a long way from ground zero. It doesn't mean T breeders don't work hard. It does mean current T breeders are still pioneers...and thats not a bad thing.

 

[Mister Internet]

Originally posted by Professor T
Atrax,

The statement "the hobby is in its infancy" is moot! Of course you know moot means "open to argument", or you would have never used it in a sentance.

It also means "of no significance or relevance" :

Usage Note: The adjective moot is originally a legal term going back to the mid-16th century. It derives from the noun moot, in its sense of a hypothetical case argued as an exercise by law students. Consequently, a moot question is one that is arguable or open to debate. But in the mid-19th century people also began to look at the hypothetical side of moot as its essential meaning, and they started to use the word to mean “of no significance or relevance.” Thus, a moot point, however debatable, is one that has no practical value. A number of critics have objected to this use, but 59 percent of the Usage Panel accepts it in the sentence The nominee himself chastised the White House for failing to do more to support him, but his concerns became moot when a number of Republicans announced that they, too, would oppose the nomination. When using moot one should be sure that the context makes clear which sense is meant. (Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)

See, you're not the only one who can attempt to impress people with inconsequential semantics...

I think the main problem here is that you seem to keep trying to lump the T Hobby and T Breeding together and declare them equal and mutual. Such is simply not the case... your first foray into the discussion (term loosely used) was jumping on Bill for comments he made about the T HOBBY with disparaging comments about T BREEDING, as if lack of knowledge of T genetics was a de facto indication of the T Hobby's infancy.

I think we can all agree that T genetics is behind when compared to dogs and reptiles. I think we can also all agree that the T HOBBY is certainly more advanced than "infant", and that genetics knowledge isn't necessarily an a priori requirement.

You want to talk about an infant hobby, try centipedes man... half our stuff comes from the dealers without definite species names!

 

[Lycanthrope]

i had no idea when i brought this up it would turn into this. let me state again, that i am against hybridizing. i just figured since they were the same species it wasnt technically hybridizing.

I know tarantula taxonomy is a bit shaky at best, and its quite possible that they will later be two seperate species.

that was from my initial post. i had no plans of breeding these and selling them. hell im not even sure i'll breed them. just an interesting thought i had. professor t, im still not quite sure what you are arguing about, i think Bill explained several times what he was saying, you just didnt seem to get it. thank you everyone for your responses, i think this was my most successful thread ever;P . i think ill make a poll just to see exactly what percentage if for and what percentage is against the idea. please remember, i wont be selling them if this project ever becomes a reality.

 

[skadiwolf]

you know, i think that we know far less about reptiles and arachnids than we do about mammals, even birds.

however, new things are being discovered and argued about birds, geckos, ferrets, everything!

we're learning new things about OUR health daily! while i think it can be frustrating overall, i also think it's exciting!

i never want to hear anyone say that T breeding or knowledge has reached its limit. i always want to hear people discovering new things, being excited and passionate about all kinds of animals.

we'll never know everything about everything, but in my opinion it isn't necessarily what you know, but the journey and how you share it with others.

me? well, i'm just on my way to becoming a total T lover thanks to ALL of you guys.

thanks!

 

[Professor T]

Originally posted by Mister Internet
It also means "of no significance or relevance" :




I think the main problem here is that you seem to keep trying to lump the T Hobby and T Breeding together and declare them equal and mutual. Such is simply not the case... your first foray into the discussion (term loosely used) was jumping on Bill for comments he made about the T HOBBY with disparaging comments about T BREEDING, as if lack of knowledge of T genetics was a de facto indication of the T Hobby's infancy.

Nothing personal, but I think the fact that little is known about T breeding genetics, does make the hobby of T breeding in its infancy.

I think we can all agree that T genetics is behind when compared to dogs and reptiles. I think we can also all agree that the T HOBBY is certainly more advanced than "infant", and that genetics knowledge isn't necessarily an a priori requirement.

I agree with you that it should be easy for everyone to agree T genetics is way behind other pet hobbies. However, I disagree that the hobby is out of its infancy in terms of popularity, laws (you can't legally ship them), or any other criteria you wan't to compare to a older more mainsteam pet hobby. I hope its OK if I disagree with you.

You want to talk about an infant hobby, try centipedes man... half our stuff comes from the dealers without definite species names!

I agree that compared to the hobby of centipede collecting, millipede collecting looks old school (just jokes). You did a nice job defending your friend on a moot point!

 

[Professor T]

Inconsequential semantics

Originally posted by Mister Ego



See, you're not the only one who can attempt to impress people with inconsequential semantics...

Yes, I know I'm not the only one...you do it all the time!

Can't figure out why you are taking a stance on the T hobby not being in its infancy, when its so obvious it is....

Could it be you were waiting in the weeds for me the first chance you got, after I corrected you on your corn snake genetics knowledge. You waited for a topic you could look up in the dictionary...the word "moot".

Now explain to me how the T hobby isn't in its infancy when you can't ship a T by plane unless you lie about it!? The clout that this hobby has tells you its in its infancy.

How about T's not being able to be sold in the largest city in the USA? What does that tell you about the clout of this hobby and its infancy?

How about the economics of the people that supply T hobbiests? If they can't make a living on tarantulas, then their business is a hobby. You can make a living in other pet trades. Many successful fish, herp, bird, and dog breeders.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the T hobby being in its infancy...it gives it a certain charm. But when the "leaders" in the hobby are in denial about it, that illustrates why the hobby will have a hard time growing, or maybe even sustaining itself.

You just entered a foot chopping off contest and got de-feeted! Hope the moderators can take it as well as dish it out!

PS- Teach me how to kiss arse to the dealers for free stuff!

Nothing personal, just my 2 sense!

 

[Henry Kane]

Originally posted by Professor T
You did a nice job defending your friend on a moot point!

Hold up a sec...Defending me? From what? I didn't realize I was being attacked. AS it turns out, I did use the word "moot" to mean "irrelevant". WHy don't you read again...I made it clear I would not partake in an arguement about any of this. Now how the hell are you going to tell me that by "moot" I meant "open to arguement"? Regardless, I will not waste energy debating anything as trivial as what I meant...I know what I meant. If you didn't get my meaning, well, I tried.

Originally posted by Professor T


I stated some great facts about T breeding being in its infancy compared to other pet hobbies. I believe just the opposite from you, that it is impossible to compare what is known about T breeding to dogs, birds, snakes, lizards, and fish.

Look, I'm not trying to convince you to see it my way. After all the point being debated is just opinion, not fact. You want to believe that it's in infancy, fine. You want to believe I meant "open to arguement" fine. (even though it couldn't be more obvious what I meant) Just because Mr.I actually listens means he's defending me?

Now for the blunt end of things...
Prof T (what a modest screen name),
First off, you are making a fool of yourself. Your attitude reminds me of a little kid having a fit over not getting his way. You seem to think that someone having a difference in opinion is a personal attack. In turn, it appears more that you are trying to defend yourself, not the (moot ) point you're trying to get across.
Second, I also made a very good point in what I was saying. You're not looking at anyone else's side, you're just looking to be right...which could never officially happen...there's not way to state as fact that this is in it's infacy or not....it's all a matter of opinion.

Another thing you may have overlooked...I stated that in my opinion I see points to both sides of the arguement. Guess if I want to be cool in your book I have to see it your way only huh? Sorry but having my own opinion is more important...

Atrax

 

[skadiwolf]

in an ideal world, we'd all agree about everything, but then again, it'd be boring as hell.

 

[Henry Kane]

Re: Inconsequential semantics

Originally posted by Professor T

Originally posted by Mister Ego
I don't think there is anything wrong with the T hobby being in its infancy...it gives it a certain charm. But when the "leaders" in the hobby are in denial about it, that illustrates why the hobby will have a hard time growing, or maybe even sustaining itself.

You just entered a foot chopping off contest and got de-feeted! Hope the moderators can take it as well as dish it out!

PS- Teach me how to kiss arse to the dealers for free stuff!

Nothing personal, just my 2 sense!

Who ever said there was something wrong with that idea? Some people may think so, some may not. Why is it so important to you that people see it YOUR way?

The hobby having a hard time growing? Are you kidding? You have any idea how much momentum this hobby has gained in the past 5 years alone? For example, the ATS conference is expecting a record number of participants. The hobby is thriving. There's no way you could ever back that theory up let alone attribute it to whate stage of maturity the hobby is in. You starting to see how foolish your comments are coming across? No wonder no one will agree with you.

YOu last comment clearly shows your insecurity when it comes to standing on your own. You could've easily said "well, that's ok, I still feel I'm right and that's cool". That would have been much more respectful than having a silly fit and (trying) to cut anyone down just for not agreeing with you.

Atrax

 

[Professor T]

Originally posted by Atrax

Guess if I want to be cool in your book I have to see it your way only huh? Sorry but having my own opinion is more important...

Atrax

Atrax,

You are cool in my book, even if we agree to disagree.

Having your own opinion is more important than agreeing with me and being right.

I do agree with you that what you meant by moot is moot.

 

[Henry Kane]

Re: Inconsequential semantics

Originally posted by Professor T

Now explain to me how the T hobby isn't in its infancy when you can't ship a T by plane unless you lie about it!? The clout that this hobby has tells you its in its infancy.

Completely un-true! Do some research before stating "false" as "fact".

Originally posted by Professor T
How about T's not being able to be sold in the largest city in the USA? What does that tell you about the clout of this hobby and its infancy?

How about the fact that ANY T hobbyist with a little common sense can acquire their own permits to import, export etc.? I know of a hobbyist on this forum who has just received permits on his own accord to bring inverts back to Canada.

Originally posted by Professor T
How about the economics of the people that supply T hobbiests? If they can't make a living on tarantulas, then their business is a hobby. You can make a living in other pet trades. Many successful fish, herp, bird, and dog breeders.

There are many successful invert dealers making a living doing what they do full time. Again, you are making your point on a complete falsehood.
Atrax

 

[Professor T]

Re: Re: Inconsequential semantics

Originally posted by Atrax

YOu last comment clearly shows your insecurity when it comes to standing on your own. You could've easily said "well, that's ok, I still feel I'm right and that's cool". That would have been much more respectful than having a silly fit and (trying) to cut anyone down just for not agreeing with you.

Atrax

Atrax,

Thanks for taking the time to help make me a better person. Well, thats OK, I still feel I'm right and that's cool...if you want to bury your head in the sand and think the T hobby isn't in its infancy, go right ahead.

School is now in session. I'll be your instructor.

Multiple choice question
The T hobby isn't in its infancy compared to:
a) dogs
b) birds
c) herps
d) fish
e) none of the above

Hint: its not a,b,c, or d

 

[skadiwolf]

listen...um, guys? i know it's clear that you all don't agree on this, and debate is great, wonderful in fact.

however, this has degraded into an argument. would you please move it to a 'flame' message thread or something?

people are taking things personally and getting rude and it isn't necessary. everyone has their own views and whether someone feels you 'should' agree or not, who cares?

i'm sure everyone respects everyone else here as all of you guys are normally SO nice.

so let's just let it die eh? i'm sure people and scientists have been debating issues like this for years...but the fact is, most of them still are.

i'd rather not have this last much longer personally.

 

[Professor T]

Re: Re: Inconsequential semantics

Originally posted by Atrax



How about the fact that ANY T hobbyist with a little common sense can acquire their own permits to import, export etc.? I know of a hobbyist on this forum who has just received permits on his own accord to bring inverts back to Canada.





Atrax

Atrax,

Check your facts, Canada is not the largest city in the USA. Just my opinion, its cool if you disagree.

 

[Henry Kane]

Re: Re: Re: Inconsequential semantics

Originally posted by Professor T
Atrax,

Thanks for taking the time to help make me a better person. Well, thats OK, I still feel I'm right and that's cool...if you want to bury your head in the sand and think the T hobby isn't in its infancy, go right ahead.

School is now in session. I'll be your instructor.

Multiple choice question
The T hobby isn't in its infancy compared to:
a) dogs
b) birds
c) herps
d) fish
e) none of the above

Hint: its not a,b,c, or d

"Prof" I'm sorry but I do not care to learn from you. Not that there's anything you could teach me. However, if you care for some tutoring, My wife is a teacher. She could really help you brush up on that spelling.

You just proved my point about the insecurity thing again! *snicker* See! I didn't agree an-an-an-and you said I'm burying my head! Do you not see? Do you not see?!

 

[Professor T]

Originally posted by Atrax



I will not partake in an arguement



Atrax

Atrax,

gottcha

 

[Henry Kane]

OOOooooo-Tayyyyy!

 

[conipto]

LMAO gary..

Dib, how perfect

Bill

 

[skinheaddave]

That's it. I'm freezing this forum as it is going nowhere useful. Since I will concequently get the last say, I figure I might as well use it:

There can be no objective definition of "infancy" unless it applies to a biological organism. Even then it is sketchy, as development is a continual process. Concequently, any of the more metaphorical uses are completely subjective and debating it is, as you can see, futile.

Professor T -- you might do well to ask one of the more senior forum members about Paul Day. There is a lot you could learn from his mistakes.

Thank you everyone for keeping it fairly civil, even if not entirely diplomatic.

Cheers,
Dave