You have not made any single attempt to address the main focus of my post
Regardless Whether It is called gutloading correct or incorrect way
Does it
Make sense to force chameleons to ingest undigestable food items? Because many people regardless of your manipulative defence of a stulid term...
1. Yemen chameleons definitely do NOT libe in dry climates. The yearly precipitation is over 2000mm There, so it easily qualifies to fit the tropical humid climate rate, just influenced heavily by the very high altitude they inhabit (around 7000ft high)
2. it is very questionable whether what...
Yiu are Always right
Yoj never apologize
Even if shown evidence of you not telling the truth
Yiu twist the situation and use another lie to het away of it and neber say sorry
Yij are rudely putting a
Laugh on where I dare to criticise yiu
I just want to remind you that I am running a
Community...
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
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...