CARPENTER-L Archives

Archiver > CARPENTER > 2000-06 > 0960566258


From: "John Mac Carpenter" <>
Subject: Re: QUIBBLER AGAIN???
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 10:57:38 -0500


And everyone on the list who's replied to this has missed the real point.
ALL bad genes came from the OTHER side of the family. No way was it OUR
side. The toes are neutral.....they can be Carpenter traits, and I do have
'em.....
-----Original Message-----
From: J. R. Carpenter <>
To: <>
Date: Friday, June 09, 2000 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: QUIBBLER AGAIN???


>>Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 04:29:33 -0400
>>From: "carpenter" <>
>>To:
>>Subject: QUIBBLER AGAIN???
>>
>>Chandler 'the quibbler' with his insatiable need to show off, obscures the
>>important point again. This time it is genetics. A "Carpenter" trait is a
>>trait only because we have a family history from which to identify it.
This
>>in no way invalidates "family traits". Read the Britannica material below.
A
>
>Bruce,
>
>You missed John Chandler's point completely. He was not disputing that
"lazy
>eyes", "web toes", etc are or are not genetic traits, or that some
>Carpenters do or do not have those traits. He was (if I may speak for you,
>John?) saying that to identify those traits as 'Carpenter traits' is not
>valid. A person with those traits, or any others, may have inherited them
>from any of the lines in his/her past. A person's current "lazy eye" status
>may be the result of traits from Carpenter or other lines. In other words,
a
>Carpenter with "lazy eye" might have that from other non-Carpenter lines
>altogether. To say that "lazy eye" is a 'Carpenter trait' is to ignore the
>possibility (probability!) that our other lines might also have this trait.
>
>Disagreeing does not mean quibbling. On this list, it is evident who
>quibbles, and who does not.
>
>Rick

This thread: