Posted by chemist on July 17, 2005, at 23:39:48
In reply to Re: Programmed cell death, posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 23:21:15
>
> > no, as i cannot and do not have to: the person to whom i was responding - Sarah T. - is also the person with whom i was having "this discourse."
> >
> > you will be aware when i am addressing you when i use your nom de plume in the body of my post and include your name in the subject line by checking the box to ``add name of previous poster.''
>
> I am not suggesting that you "have to" reply to me, but you have corresponded with me several times today, suggesting that you have some interest in correspondence with me.
>
> Since you choose to have your conversation with SarahT in a public forum provided so anyone can benefit from reading it, could you clarify whether your reference to programmed cell death implied the retirement of an old term in favor of a more apt term, as you suggested in the statement that "homeostasis would, as you note, be far more apt".
>
> If you cannot explain this, as you seem to have written ("I cannot and do not have to") can you eleborate on why you cannot explain it?
>
>hello there, chemist here...yes, i can elaborate on why i cannot explain to which you refer, but my choice is not to do so, at this time or in the future. all the best, chemist
poster:chemist
thread:527956
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050716/msgs/529356.html