Search results

Ininsist you manipulate and twist And in thisnenvironment Itnis impossinle tk come to other consensus than to yours being tigjt which have been lroven is not I have noproblem being wrong if it is true But Inreaerve my integrity to decide what is going on here I abscond from rhat debate It...

How can Ferretinmushoes put a like here when this exactly prooves her concept of gutloading that includes digestion is simply FALSE?!!!! This is really ridiculous! Even a non-english native tongue can easily understand rhat GUT LOAD menas GUT . Imprecies word for stomachnor even intestines and...

So, well done To aide to someone whomismresponsoble Formthe old dashion and nit xhanging mayerials and recommemdations here, killing almost all progress here I can be just sorry about what impact this have in this less and less resoected resource on the international Context I said enough...

I explaimed repeatedly that there is no exact research on it And I explained the application of rhe the ethical principle In dubio abstine I say ALWAYS “potentially harmful” And I gave three more or less valid examples

Yoj argument with yiur own partly wrong definitions

Thisnis a false Definition created by you here only I agree itnis good to feed feeders high wuakity food I disagree to ise them as transport Means fkr undigested undigestable meaningless or potentially harmful plant Matter to chameleons witb the hope it will be digested by them

Yes thisnis my point I am not sgipid mz goodness. I will reword it I agree of course and all Evidence is here that a feeder that has been fed high nutritional food, digested it and put it into its body liquids (not Bloodstream, as Fetreninmyshoes agai wrongly states, as insects have no...

I will use the term in peer reviewed publications, no worries, one book and one paper already in the pipeline Indo NOT accept falsifying the meaning of terms and consider it a very harmful practiceC especially in a commhnity directed on education

I am NOT We have agreed aleeady and xame to a good Consensus Then someone comes does not read our debate properly, even uses Lies to falsify the arguments and we pass? NO Gutloading is not same as Feeding Never ever Same as Horse is not a donkey Saliva are not acid And gut is not hut

You are falsifuing facts. Gutloading and feeding are different things We have NOT said HIGH WUAKITY FEEDERS OH MY GOODNESS CAN YOUNPLEASE PLEASE READ ATMLEATS WITH ATTENTION? We defined GUTLOADING (as a orocess of.... ) And HIGH QUALITY FEEDING OF FEEDERS (as a process...)

And this is what I strongly disagree with you with all respect dramatically. It is you who plays with words in the care sheets and allows people to read amd remember imprecise statements and says it is good enough. I protest It is NOT the same!!! We have the obligation to use terms properly...

YES! And we jabe xame tomthatncomsensus aleeady, we jist need tomreopen the denate necause somene whomeven did nit oay aztemtion tomthe danate in derail and even did nitmcjeck that imdeed citrus and almonds ARE in the by CF recommended gutload, chimesnin and destroys the consensual debate fir...

This is well possible but noone ever made this cimparison Noone ever stjdied the foodmof feeders Noone took samoles And noone said: this component we can find in this plant ans therefore we sunstitute it with it Noone ever

O do not agree in full with this I agree with this statement THEORETICALLY, under the comdition that WE PROVIDE ENOUGH UV. And this, we are almost never sure about!!! Because we csn not control the amount of UV, the chameleon gets. Itnis enough that the chameleon is 2in too dostant from the...

Which ai ansolutely agree on and we have even defined it as a special term HQF While HIGH QUALITY FEEDING IS imcreasing theirnnutritiinal value, The gutloading, however is meaningless and potentially harmful

You miss the most important point Amd this is the definition of GUTLOADING which you evidently mix up with the term FEEDING. I ANSOLUTELY AGREE with tje statement that: “ The scientific papers listed above say that nutritional value of feeders does increase depending on what is fed” But readnit...

Inhabe the impression you have not read the thread at all Exactly this I am stating so why do you argue against stating the same? (That once digested, it was Not a gutload but foodmof feeders, it is fine) I talk about the GUTLOAD IT MEANS ABOUT THE CONTENT OF GUTS THAT IS SUPPOSED NOT TO BE...

Well, if thisnis not true, then itnis a lie. i do notmumderszand why you destroy the constructive and fair denaze here With such strange lie, that can be immediately proven to be false just looking at the gutloading chart you have here on this pages. I am shocked

We talk about diet and not about clothing. I umderstand that your attempt is metaphorical nit it is so heavily misleading that the message is lost. And harmfuľmess I jabe explicitely defined and gave examples somitnis unfair timteist my wirds here this way. Butnak am used ti this from you with...