 | mobile - desktop |
|
| mobile - desktop |
|
 |
 Contact Sales! |
News & Events:
|
Posted by Kingmilk on September 20, 2002 at 14:32:52:
In Reply to: You\'ve got me all wrong, K.E... posted by Gerry Binczik on September 20, 2002 at 09:57:09:
Gerry;
I am sorry, but I have to say something here. You sort of accused me of the same things as K.E. when I amde a statement about some proffessionals laughing at non-sense in the hobby, then again when I told a specific story about being warned out of a zoo program, you basically said little except that you suppose this could happen.
I agree with you that MOST researchers and scientists are great people. I have worked with a number of them over the years ansd know many who are hard working, meticulous and respectable people. I have a deep respect for the sciences and scientist in general, as I think you knoiw from my former posts.
Now, with the disclaimer laid out... I have three specific instances of bad behaivior from scientists/proffesors that I know.
1. I was pulled aside by the head of the zoo prgram and told to quit or I would be failed, regardless of my test scores. I was told I had no place in the zoo world, because of my interest in morphs. These are the exact things this proffesor said to me. Believe it or not...
2. When I was working with Gallus, there were three researchers who I worked with and did gene testing with. Of the three, one was convinced (based on his beliefe and feelings rather than hard data) that the green jungle fowl could not produce a fertile hybrid offspring with red junglefowl, or their descendants, the chickens. In my test matings, I proved this wrong. All offspring from f1 through f3 were tested by all three researchers. I kept meticulous records. Out of 321 offspring of greenxchicken, 1 rooster was fertile. We tested the hell out of him and bred him and his progeny for three more generations. All tested positive for green genetics. Myself and the other two researchers were thrilled. Immediately, this researcher started saying negative things bbecause this went aginst his feelings. First he said that I had mixed up progeny, then he said I had sent the wrong samples, then he said I was outright lying because what I said happened was impossible. THis went on for two years, with me and the other two researchers making forward movement and testing each generation and making some findings. It got to the point where our naysayer wouldn't speak to me or the other two researchers and finally he began to spread rumors about us to anyone else in our circles. VERY PROFFESIONAL, don't you think Gerry?
3. One of those three researchers who I worked with and is one of the two that I am still in contact with, always refered to the average poultry hobbiests as idiots. To the point that when he started railing against idiots, we all knew he meant the poultry hobby and especially the show poultry hobby.
Now I know you are not going to like any of this Gerry, but truth is truth and I do not say any of this to point a finger at your proffession in any general way. I say it to point a finger at the true bad apples in the bunch. Surely you can not thinklthat I have any disrespect ofr the scientist in general. I prefer the scientists in most cases over the hobbiest. But these examples are true. There is always one bad person in any group of good people. That is reality. To say that there is a proffession where every person there is wonderful and would never ever do anything untoward is naive'. It is also not true. You know from the kingsnake forum that I have alot of respect for you and scientists in general, but I can not make these true experiences go away for that reason.
Brian Reeder
