Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 23:21:15
In reply to Re: Programmed cell death » so, posted by chemist on July 17, 2005, at 22:08:49
> 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?
poster:so
thread:527956
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050716/msgs/529348.html