"Anon."  wrote in
message news:ceqv56$2rk2$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> Name And Address Supplied wrote:
> > "John Edser"  wrote in message
news:...
> >>--------------quote----------------------
> >>
> >>1) 22/01/2004:
> >>
> >>JE:-
> >>What is the difference between
> >>a reduced positive c and a negative c?
> >>If c was an abolute measure of fitness
> >>then yes, a real difference exists. However
> >>c is only a relative fitness cost and not
> >>an absolute fitness cost, so what is the
> >>difference?
> >>
> >>BOH:-
> >>
> >>As far as the rule is concerned, none.
> >>
> >>----------- end quote --------------------
> >>
> >>For the 6th (?) time and counting:
> >>
> >>Do you agree or disagree with the
> >>answer Dr O'Hara provided? A simple
> >>YES or NO will suffice.
> >>
> >
> >
> > No, a simple yes or no will not suffice to your question as it has
> > been put.
> >
> > My answer is: I disagree with Dr O'Hara.
> >
> Oh!  The point behind the statement I made there was that the rule still
> holds whether c is positive or negative, i.e. it can still be used to
> decide whether a behaviour will invade a population.  Obviously changing
> the value of c may change the prediction, but the rule would still be
> used.  Therfore as far as the rule is concerned, there is no difference,
> even if there would be a diffeence in a particular application of the rule.

And, to repeat for the third time, I agree with the content of the statement
that BOH has just now made, but disagree that "As far as the rule is
concerned, none" is an appropriate answer to the question John meant.
That it was not an appropriate answer has been illustrated repeatedly by
the misinterpretation of this answer that John has made.

And I STRONGLY agree with NAS that "a simple yes or no will not suffice".
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 8/4/04 9:34:46 PM