has died due to colony colapse disorder, which, as I understand it, is the honeybee equivalent of a deadly syndrome. No one knows why it's happening, but it's definitely happening.
I am not an environmentalist, but I do not like useless destruction, death, and extinction. (Useless to whom? Human beings.) And honey bees are one of the more benign critters with which we share our ecosystem. They make honey. The nice ones don't attack puppies and babies. I've personally stood unprotected amid a swarm that stopped in our yard for a few hours while searching for a place to build a hive.
I have nothing but love for bees of the nonpsychopathic varieties.
.
Now, in case I have some liberal-minded people reading, let's be clear: if you want to kill bees that have taken leave of your property, that is your legal right and I defend that. However, you have my moral condemnation. This is stupid, wanton, pointless, childish, and destructive.
Immature people may kill animals for no good reason. I myself have killed animals for no good reason before. But I expect people to learn a lesson. When I hear about people killing or torturing animals for sport, it irritates me. Even, or perhaps especially, because of my experience I don't understand the appeal.
Animals have no point to their existence. They're just wandering around out there doing animal things. Our interaction with them -- just as our interaction with the rest of reality -- should be governed by our rational self-interest. We work to our benefit, not to our whim. Killing them because they set up shop in your long-unattended grill is just malicious and wrong.
People. If you have a hive you don't want, just call a beekeeper. They'll come and take it away, probably for free, and try to keep the hive alive. How do you find a beekeeper? You're reading this on the internet. Use your imagination. (If you're particularly imaginative and prefer the old skool, call your county extension office.)
The key here is that this is was an established hive and not a swarm passing through. Apparently, these are more difficult to get rid of and can cost you a lot of money. After calling for beekeepers and everything to find this out, I'd have probably exterminated them, too. This is sad, but that's how things are.
So, I owe an apology to this beekiller guy for calling him so many horrid names.
Even so, if you want to get my dander up, just let me see you needlessly and gleefully killing things, breaking things, or causing a mess! grrrr...
1
I don't understand getting upset about this. A wild, dangerous swarm of insects invaded a man's property and he acted to defend himself and said property. His punctuation justifies your classification of him as an "idiot," but not his behavior.
Maybe there would have been a local beekeeper willing to remove it - maybe not. Maybe it was a less-agressive non-africanized swarm - maybe not. And certainly, I don't agree that domestic bees are as harmless as you indicate.
And your implication that this would necessarily be an act of wanton cruelty for cruelty's sake is unjustified, as far as the evidence indicates.
The fundamental nature of animals is not that they are simply "wandering around doing animal things," but that they do the things which further their survival - with no consideration or concern for yours. The fundamental relationship of man to this is that he either becomes its master - by force and guile - or becomes subject to its merciless processes.
Fundamentally, (i.e., as opposed to specifically) when I look at this scenario I see a man who understood that maxim, and acted properly upon it.
You can argue the point that a different specific action might have worked more to his (or someone's?) benefit here (or maybe not), but I sense that you are upset on some other level, and I don't agree with that.
(Probably, you knew some cruel rednecks in your time and are filling in some blanks based on that. I will grant you that there is no shortage of those and it's not a poor bet. But never forget our fundamental relationship to nature.)
Posted by: Inspector at November 16, 2008 09:38 PM (dqPO7)
2
You see what I see here and I see no reason to extend him the benefit of what slim doubt there is as you do.
Based on his dialect, it is safe to conclude that he is not in an area with killer bees. (
Google reveals that he's an Australian and that the bees are not, in fact, killer.) His actions indicate no direct personal need to kill all those bees (such as an allergy to bees) which means he had time to do some calling -- an action he gives no indication he even attempted.
And even if he did have some need -- such as someone in his house with an allergy -- the correct action to avoid needless destruction of the hive would have been to call a beekeeper.
In fact, his commentary seems to indicate that he took some pleasure in the whole thing.
And I take exception to this remark:
The fundamental nature of animals is not that they are simply
"wandering around doing animal things," but that they do the things
which further their
survival - with no consideration or concern for yours
.That is exactly the nature of animals. But that does not mean that animals act of malice or any deliberate desire to hurt you over anyone or anything else.
There is absolutely no reason to regard animals with the same fear and malice with which one regards criminals. Why do you think bees are that dangerous? Do you have any experience (even as limited as mine) with swarms of bees?
Just because some animal is around is no reason to freak out and kill it.
I do actually have a lot of direct experience with animals and rednecks. I've described my experience with a swarm of feral honey bees. And point of fact, with the exception of one uncle that I suspect was involved with dog fighting, all the rednecks I know personally are opposed to inflicting needless harm on animals as this yahoo did.
This person acted maliciously and destructively for no good reason at all and it is abundantly clear to me from his photos and commentary. What he did is wrong.
Posted by: Flibbert at November 17, 2008 12:37 AM (xzhy1)
3
Yes, I have extensive experience with bees, from growing up in the midwest. I can tell you that your experience with them as benign is either the exception or part of their behavior when colonizing. I've witnessed many cases in which bees invaded peoples' homes or properties and they either used bee-killing spray to eliminate them or called exterminators who did the same.
This is the normal, widespread, practice when dealing with bees, which are dangerous and invasive insects. And I've also personally witnessed, with predictable regularity, what happens to people who regard bees as harmless. (they are stung, the fools!)
That a beekeeper might be interested in them wouldn't even have occurred to me before your post and I would have done exactly as the redneck did.
That he took some pleasure in eliminating a threat to himself and his property, and also in triumphing over nature, is not unusual or malicious. He might be malicious for all I know but an automatic conclusion of such simply because someone swiftly acted properly to eliminate a threat and was happy they could do so is not warranted.
"But that does not mean that animals act of malice or any deliberate desire to hurt you over anyone or anything else. "
Agreed, because that would imply a sort of free will. They don't desire to do harm to people and property, they simply do it if their nature calls for it. Remorselessly. And should be treated as such if the situation calls for it, or if any doubt exists in that regard. To fail to do so is to risk human life or property for... what? Sentiment?
Posted by: Inspector at November 17, 2008 05:19 AM (dqPO7)
4
Just because other people do it, too, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. And just because you didn't think of alternatives does not mean you have the right disposition here.
It's not like this man uncovered a nest of rattlesnakes or a den of grizzly bears. Further, this was not an "automatic conclusion." I read his commentary of his actions.
I don't understand your hostility toward animals and nature in the least. It's a shame that you have such a singularly destructive attitude toward that which which we agree are the fundamental resources for human happiness.
Posted by: Flibbert at November 17, 2008 07:24 AM (xzhy1)
5
It's possible they could be dangerous in an area in the south where the
Africanized strain exists. However, the vast majority of swarms are
completely safe in most of the United States. Africanized colonies are mostly a problem in the southwest and Florida. Africanized colonies throw swarms quite a bit.
In the swarm state,
they are gentlest of all because they have no resources to defend. (This also applies to Africanized colonies. You don't find out that you have a "hot" hive until later on, at which point you should requeen with a known race and the problem will solve itself in about a month.) I'm
a beekeeper and I captured three honeybee swarms this summer. I was
stung once this entire year handling tens of thousands of honeybee. Last year, after my hive was attacked by a bear and the bees
were pretty riled up, I only got stung four times when carrying the
hive 200 feet across the property to a secure location. So much for
the idea that bees are naturally aggressive. Many people often mistake
hornets, wasps and yellow jackets for bees. Most people wouldn't know the difference between a bee and any of
these other insects. I probably wouldn't have before become a beekeeper.
This isn't the worst I've seen. Check out these idiots:
http://sparkasynapse.blogspot.com/2008/06/how-not-to-get-rid-of-honeybee-swarm.html
Those pictures are awesome, Flibby. I always like seeing natural comb of a feral colony. Unfortunately, in a situation
where they have started to build a brood nest and honey stores, they
can get defensive. I don't necessarily think it's bad if people kill
these colonies, though it's definitely a loss for those of us looking
for healthy colonies who might have resistance to some of the newer
diseases. Feral colonies are those that were either swarms from a domestic colony or a feral one. So there's a greater chance in capturing a feral colony that there is some local adaptation, which is good.
Posted by: Monica at November 17, 2008 10:46 AM (sBhdi)
6
"We think the queen flew away..." !? What an idiot.
Hopefully he removed the comb so that a new colony doesn't take up residence. Worse, the honey could start getting robbed by wasps, which actually are nasty and then he would have a real problem on his hand.
No truly allergic person would attempt such a stunt. They would be inside shaking in their boots calling the exterminator.
Interesting that he does not report getting stung once will all those thousands of bees, eh?
Posted by: Monica at November 17, 2008 11:02 AM (sBhdi)
7
"Just because other people do it, too, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do."
That isn't my point. Exterminators are professionals who deal with bees all the time. If it was a normal thing that beekeepers wanted (or paid for) to go to peoples' homes to save the bees, then you would think that they would know about it. If such a thing exists now, it certainly didn't when I was living in the midwest. If it has become a practice, then this is likely due to the unusual circumstances of the bee shortage.
My point is that if a swarm of bees builds a colony on your grill, there is nothing unusual, cruel, or monsterous about exterminating it. This is the usual practice, and if beekeepers have started asking for different, that is a new development. You can't expect for everyone to have heard of it and you can't jump to the conclusion of cruelty for someone engaging in the normal practice of removing a dangerous insect from their property.
Flib, they sell bee extermination poison at the store. That is, poison which is labeled and marketed specifically for its ability to kill bee colonies. Why would they sell it at the store if, as you imply, only cruel, malicious rednecks killed bees? Or are you implying that the whole of society is insane in this regard?
"It's not like this man uncovered a nest of rattlesnakes or a den of grizzly bears."
If anything, I would say the opposite of what you're getting at: that the man's actions were foolish only insomuch as they were foolishly risky. He could have been stung, badly, and really should have called an exterminator.
You say there isn't evidence of an allergy. That isn't how venom allergies work. ANYONE is potentially allergic, and even if you haven't had an allergic reaction in the past, you stand an increasing chance of developing one with each new sting.
Finally, I don't have a "singularly destructive attitude." Just yesterday, I found a tiny lizard in my hotel bathroom. I shooed it out the door with a towel. And this morning, I saw a roach crawling on the TV screen and I smashed it dead. I can differentiate between the threats that varying species represent to me. I think we just disagree about both the threat and the value of a swarm of wild bees.
Posted by: Inspector at November 17, 2008 03:09 PM (dqPO7)
8
"Why would they sell it at the store if, as you imply, only cruel, malicious rednecks killed bees? "
Again, just because people do it doesn't make it right. And I did not say anything about rednecks, nor did I say anything that a reasonable person would construe as a general statement condemning the killing of bees in all contexts.
Beekeeping is not a new thing at all, neither is the collection of
feral swarms. Undoubtedly, most people kill hives of bees with poison
out of sheer convenience. But that convenience translates into ignorance and, here, gleeful malice.
Again: needless destruction of a honeybee hive is morally repugnant. Honeybees are not wildly dangerous creatures and are, in fact, useful animals.
Posted by: Flibbert at November 17, 2008 05:47 PM (ErOeR)
9
Bees are a dangerous nuisance and it is not morally repugnant at all to exterminate them in this or similar circumstances, just as one would with any animal pest invading your property, such as rats, ants, termites, rattlesnakes, etc. It is what most people do, with thousands of products marketed in millions of stores for exactly that purpose - which does not as such make it right, but I want it to be clear what (a widespread practice) and who (most people, including myself) you are accusing of "moral repugnance."
In short, we simply disagree here. Good day to you, though, sir.
Posted by: Inspector at November 17, 2008 07:26 PM (dqPO7)
10
You're being ridiculous. Bees are not a big deal and they're easy to deal with without killing them, which is why I wrote to inform you -- and others who might also rush to similar destructive ends -- of an alternative to your needless destruction of a useful animal. Call a beekeeper.
With a hive as big as the one in those pictures, he might have even been able to sell it.
In most situations where a hive shows up at your house, this is a viable (possibly profitable) alternative. It's stupid to just kill them.
Posted by: Flibbert at November 17, 2008 08:31 PM (xzhy1)
11
I've already addressed that - if beekeepers are interested in buying wild bee hives, that is certainly a new development. They must be really desparate because in the past they used to be concerned with parasites and mixing unknown species with their stock. As such, it is fine to inform people there might be profits to be had but this does not justify the outrage you've displayed and certainly not on moral grounds! They're just insects!
And bees ARE a big deal. Anything that colonizes into structures, can sting painfully, and sometimes fatally, is a big deal and should be treated as one. It's up to each person to decide what they are willing to tolerate in terms of painful stings, risk of serious allergic reaction, and damage to property but to say those things don't exist with bees or are "no big deal" is either factually wrong or merely a statement of your personal choice of tolerance to them, which has no moral bearing on those who choose to take these things more seriously.
If you want to believe that they're Your Little Pals That Would Never Hurt You then that's your business. You're wrong, but it's your business. To call those who don't share your evaluation of them (and act on it) "morally repugnant" is wrong and over the line.
Posted by: Inspector at November 17, 2008 09:11 PM (dqPO7)
12
Beekeeping is not a new development. People have been capturing wild bees for thousands of years. Beekeepers are still concerned about parasites and diseases, that's why fresh, wild stock is appealing.
And you're right: honey bees are just insects. Useful insects.
And you're being absolutely ridiculous about the risks associated with them.
Do you know what else can be sometimes fatal? Just about everything. Dog saliva. Peanuts. A great number of things can be
sometimes fatal. But we can't live our lives in fear of potentialities.
And there are also a great number of things that can inflict a bit of pain. Cats. Dogs. Rabbits. Horses. Lizards. (There's still a hilarious story in my famliy of one of my cousins getting bitten by a small green
anole so hard it left marks.) But we don't instantly kill them based on this broad potential.
Surely, I don't have to list things that we don't kill on sight just because they turned up in the house. Lizards, for instance. (And the benefits a lizard presents to people is indirect and small.)
Bees are not a big deal. You've highlighted some of the risks (And they are mild risks at that) that people have to keep in mind, but risk is inherent in dealing with any animal even domesticated ones. I don't know why you have such a fear of bees, but it overshoots the risks (assuming you're not one of those people with an allergy to bee stings) by a far mark.
As I stated several times, what I am expressing moral outrage about is the needless killing of these animals -- just like the guy who made these pictures did. Honey bees are useful, good, insects that can be easily put to the benefit of human beings.
Wanton destructive behavior is immoral. Killing things and breaking things without any good reason is wrong. The needless destruction of life-benefiting resources in the form of animals or inanimate objects is an action against life itself.
So, unless you have some compelling argument that supports the needless killing -- and please pay attention to the qualification "needless" because in it I am accepting context -- of a hive of honey bees, I have no reason to change my mind on this and I stand by what I said.
The only qualification I will offer you is this: there are lots of different kinds of bees and not all of them pose a direct benefit like honey that outweighs their destructive behavior. I'm thinking specifically of those giant carpenter bees that chew big holes in wood.
But here we're talking about honey bees.
Posted by: Flibbert at November 17, 2008 10:54 PM (xzhy1)
13
"Needless"
I think this is the key.
I see we both agree that bees are resources and not rights-posessing entities.
Further, while we disagree (strongly) on the degree of a problem bees represent, we do agree that there is at least some extent to which they are problematic.
That a man might want to remove bees is not in dispute. You simply assert that there may be a more resourceful way in which to do this than exterminating them.
Now suppose that there was a man who liked to eat cheeseburgers from his favorite restaurant but wasn't usually hungry enough to eat two of them. Sometimes he is, so he always orders two, just in case. (He's not too thoughtful about it.) He also can't stand leftovers so he often ends up throwing one out in the trash.
Now this, in the long run, will waste more money and "needlessly" kill more animals than our amateur exterminator friend. And of course, thoughtlessly wasting your money is, when you get down to brass tacks, "an action against life itself." But somehow I don't see you as being as outraged. I don't see you throwing around terms like "morally repugnant."
I suggest you re-examine this issue to make sure you're working on your actual morality and not something else.
Posted by: Inspector at November 17, 2008 11:26 PM (dqPO7)
14
That's it, Inspector. You're not welcome here any longer.
Posted by: Flibbert at November 17, 2008 11:36 PM (xzhy1)
15
For the benefit of other observers who aren't sure what just happened.
Inspector's pugnacious diposition is not what I found so objectionable here. That is par for the course, but his closing remark above was across the line.
But let me be clear: there is no invitation on this blog to psychologize about my or anyone else's motivations in posing their arguments.
Posted by: Flibbert at November 18, 2008 06:59 AM (xzhy1)
16
I'd like to address several questionable ideas that have been presented in the comments here.
First, the ideas about allergies. Anaphylactic reactions are relatively
uncommon in the general population. Less than 2% of people react with anaphylaxis to bee stings.
The idea that anyone can develop allergies to bee stings, and that this
is an increasing risk with each sting, is simply false. Beekeepers who
work with large volumes of bees and get
stung on a regular basis during honey production time when the bees are
most defensive actually diminish in
their reaction and fail to develop any swelling whatsoever. For most non-allergic people, more
exposure is
not a problem. Of course, if you already are allergic, you want to
avoid stings. However, swelling up is not an allergic reaction. It is
a perfectly normal reaction to a bee sting and as one experiences more
and more stings, the average person will actually fail to swell up. Swelling up is not an allergy. Breaking out in hives is.
If ANYONE was at risk for developing allergies with increasing numbers of stings, we could expect most commercial beekeepers to become out of work after a few seasons.
Now
to the nature of bees. Many people such as myself can handle tens of
thousands of bees at a time without experiencing any stings
whatsoever. You should not handle bees if you have not read up about
it, but they are not inherently dangerous animals. In fact they are
extraordinarily beneficial in terms of pollination services and
apitherapy. As I described above, bees are simply not
naturally aggressive or inherently dangerous, as has been suggested.
It is true that bees can be defensive when attempting to
remove an
already established hive. This is simply not the same thing as working with a swarm that has just been thrown from an existing colony or the usual inspection of a hive, both of which are completely safe. Call a removal expert and do not attempt
this yourself. Removal of a hive inside a building structure is expensive, up
to $1000, but if you kill the bees and then leave the hive there you
are asking for it to be recolonized by another swarm or robbed by
wasps, and wasps are worse.
Finally, I would like to address the myth that collecting swarms is something
new. People have been keeping bees and collecting swarms since the
time of the Greeks, at least. Where on earth did they get these bees? Certainly people started collecting
swarms and keeping bees in this country long before there were any
companies from which to order packages of bees. I belong to a
beekeeping email listserve and this spring we all received at least 40
notices from laypeople in the greater area requesting a beekeeper to come
remove swarms from their properties. Those are just the notifications
I know about and I'm sure there were calls to other beekeepers not on
the list. I even know a company in the local area whose primary
business in the spring is swarm removal. In fact, the 21st edition of
"The New Starting Right With Bees", a book that has been around for
over 60 years, begins on the very first page with swarm collection
techniques as the primary way to begin beekeeping. Collecting swarms is not "new", unusual, or unheard of.
Posted by: Monica at November 18, 2008 12:26 PM (sBhdi)
17
See, if no one were willing to get rid of the bees for me and I couldn't do it myself, I wouldn't pay $1,000 to have it removed. That's a situation where the necessity of removing the bees (Because they're preventing you from using your BBQ, for instance) and the relatively low cost of insecticide leave only one unfortunate, but acceptable alternative.
I certainly wouldn't take any pleasure in it, though.
Posted by: Flibbert at November 18, 2008 01:12 PM (xzhy1)
18
Exactly. It's all about context. I'd likely exterminate in that situation as well.
I think this particularly example goes beyond simply avoiding a needless destruction of animals or taking pleasure in their destruction. Allowing a swarm to be captured is actually something that is in our own rational self interest depending on the cost to do so. (At least for those of us who eat vegetables that rely on pollination.) The value of swarms is high in terms of what they could offer in terms of pest resistance. Healthy colonies are the ones that throw swarms, and they could be feral or from a domestic colony but there is simply a greater chance of local adaptation and resistance in capturing a swarm vs. buying a package. Basic evolution. I wouldn't necessarily expect someone to know this, but the fact remains.
If someone were to eat 10 candy bars in one sitting, I would recognize their right to do it but I would also be able to independently make the judgment that what they are doing is actually not in their own long term rational self-interest,
whether they realize it or not.
Posted by: Monica at November 18, 2008 02:28 PM (sBhdi)
19
See, you should have set me to rights before Inspector got his dander up about it. That would have save some heartache!
Posted by: Flibbert at November 18, 2008 03:28 PM (xzhy1)
20
Inspector wrote to me separately and apologized for his above comment and we discussed it. He wanted to follow up with another comment here, but I asked him not to.
One thing I did tell him I would do is look for evidence supporting his arguments about bee sting allergies. I did find this link to a scientific paper studying bee sting allergies in bee keepers:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119129224/abstractBackground Beekeepers are strongly exposed to honey bee stings and
therefore at an increased risk to develop IgE-mediated allergy to bee
venom.
Objective We wondered whether bee venom-allergic beekeepers were
different from normally exposed bee venom-allergic patients with regard
to clinical and immunological parameters as well as their response to
venom immunotherapy.
Method Among the 459 bee venom-allergic patients
seen over the 5 year period 1987-91, 62 (14%) were beekeepers and 44
(10%) family members of beekeepers. These two groups were compared with
101 normally exposed bee venom-allergic patients matched with the
allergic beekeepers for age and sex, regarding clinical parameters,
skin sensitivity. specific IgE and IgG antibodies to bee venom as well
as safety and efficacy of venom immunotherapy.
Results As expected,
allergic beekeepers had been stung most frequently before the first
allergic reaction. The three groups showed a similar severity of
allergic symptoms following bee stings and had an equal incidence of
atopic diseases. Allergic beekeepers showed higher levels of bee
venom-specific serum IgG, lower skin sensitivity and lower levels of
bee venom specific serum IgE than bee venom-allergic control patients.
A negative correlation between number of stings and skin sensitivity as
well as specific IgE was found in allergic beekeepers and their family
members, while the number of stings was positively correlated with
specific IgG in these two groups. Venom immunotherapy was equally
effective in the three groups, but better tolerated by allergic
beekeepers than the two other groups. The majority of allergic
beekeepers continued bee-keeping successfully under the protection of
venom immunotherapy.
Conclusion The lower level of sensitivity in
diagnostic tests and the better tolerance of immunotherapy in allergic
beekeepers is most likely related to the high level of specific IgG in
this group.
This seems to confirm Inspector's point that the more a person is exposed to bee stings the more likely one is to develop a venom allergy and so each time you get stung could lead to a reaction.
However, I also found this article which discusses the rate of allergic reactions:
http://www.medicinenet.com/insect_sting_allergies/article.htmOver 2 million Americans are allergic to stinging insects. The degree of
allergy varies widely. Most people are not allergic to insect stings, and most insect stings result in only local
itching
and swelling. Many, however, will have severe allergic reactions.
Severe allergic reactions to insect stings are responsible for at least
50 deaths each year in the U.S.
This seems like a lot, but note that the basic swelling and itching is in itself an allergic reaction. Fatal reactions seem to only occur at a rate of 4 per 1000.
This supports the Monica's point that such allergies really aren't all that common. Especially when you compare it to other allergies such as peanut allergies,
which are prevalent at a rate above 1%.
Posted by: Flibbert at November 19, 2008 09:53 PM (xzhy1)
21
Another claim that Inspector wanted to clarify is that he wasn't claiming that capturing bees is in itself new. He meant that the popularity of beekeeping has only recently risen to a point where one can reasonably expect a person to find one in their area to help capture a swarm or to consult on such things.
This claim hardly seems worth contesting since it stands to reason that with increased wealth, gentleman (and lady) farmer-types would be more inclined to try things like this out.
The AJC had an article in October about the increase in popularity of urban beekeeping. But it also seems reasonable to expect the concentration of beekeepers in the population to fluctuate over time and to vary wildly by geography.
But hobbiests have been keeping bees for decades and decades.
Prior to the internet or someone listing their services in the phone book, there is a source that I mentioned in my original post as a common source for information on local flora and fauna: the county extension office.
When it comes to destroying any naturally occurring resource, be it killing off a hive of bees or burning off a field, I am of the mind that a person should ask around and consult whatever resources a person has at hand to see if there is any way to both accomplish one's ends and still reap some value out of that resource. I understand not launching a full search of the Library of Congress, but put forth SOME effort.
And killing off animals -- even bees -- isn't something a person should do for the glee of killing or as an exercise in creativity. (I think we all agree on that.)
Posted by: Flibbert at November 19, 2008 10:23 PM (xzhy1)
22
Inspector also asked me to make clear that while he did apologize for his comment, it definitely was not his intent to psychologize above. He wasn't being snarky and trying to suggest that I was angry about needless animal killing was the result of some internal issues. What he meant to say is that I should simply check my premises in making my argument.
Although I stand by the principle I identified above, he did ask me to make clear that this was a misunderstanding.
I accepted his apology and so he is welcome to comment further on other posts. (I've just asked to let this comment string die and that's why he hasn't written in here himself.)
Posted by: Flibbert at November 19, 2008 11:52 PM (xzhy1)
Posted by: Flibbert at November 23, 2008 07:30 PM (xzhy1)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Monkeys are intelligent and agile, well-adapted for jungle life as they swing happily from tree to tree. As a monkey, you are a social animal who eats a wide range of food, is quick to learn new things and loves to climb. A monkey's tiny primate features are irresistable, as is his gregarious personality!
