The point I am trying to make is not whether your right or wrong, its more about why are you making the statements you do.



Most here do not understand much or any of what your saying, and there is no need to(including me). Your discussion is aimed at another group of people. The people here(including me) are simple people, give me something that works. When i don't have something that works. There really does not need to be a scientific explination, as I/we are going to apply it and it will either work or not. Keeping monitors is applied principles.



Your summations seem to be meant for the academic types, which in most cases do not practice, only theorize. Your mode of language fits them, but not us. The reality is, it does not matter what they think or if you convince them anyway. The reason is again simple, they do not apply it. They would rather move on to another theory.



Again, your words seem to be what someone like them, wants or does not want to hear. Depending on their viewpoint. They are not really appliable.



I know, I often switch forth and back from suedo-scientific babble to keeper jargon. Please understand, thats a curse and only an attempt to comunicate. In reality and for the purposes of this forum, I am a common keeper. As such, our solutions for problems, not theoretical problems, but real problems, are real solutions, not theoretical solutions. I think most of us, do not need fancy words to discribe a solution. For instance the common questions are, what temps, not in theory, in applied reality. What kind of cage, not to think about, but what I am going to build. What to seal the cage with, again something to build. What food items, again, something to apply and use, not theorize if it will work.



Your discriptions are aimed at those who mostly do not really care if it really works, because that is not important to them. Whats important to them is, that all things we think, fit their theoretical language based idea of what each species of monitor is. Mind you, not what the real monitor is. But what a paper based monitor is. Also mind you, it seems that monitors on paper are not the monitors with meat and bones(the real ones). Consider, those who believe in paper monitors, do not need a real solution, particularly if its simple, because simple detracts for their complicated theoretical beliefs. Consider history academics have failed miserably at keeping monitors.



That sir is my belief why there is constant bickering on the basics of varanids. As a successful keeper and apparently field person, I find varanids to be simple and easy. Which is a direct challange to the academics beliefs that varanids are complicated and difficult. In other words, I am attacking their world and they do not like it. The reality is, I am not attacking anything, I keep and breed monitors very successfully. My world and their world are not the same. Mine by nature and difinition is reality based, I practice it. Theirs by difinition is theory based. Why are their doctors of medicine and other doctors who practive medicine?(just a side thought) Why are their classes, and a different class on the same subject called a lab?



Which again takes us back to the top. I do not need words to solve problems, I need real appliable fixes, as do all of us who actually keep monitors. Thanks for posting and really It does help me think(theorize) about how people relate to monitors. FR

[ Show Entire Thread ]