Challenge spelling correction

i.kurtzer (970729)
i apologize for the atrocious spelling errors in my most recent post and
will correct them here. thankyou. i.

Bruce, your ad hominems are irrelevant to me and i assume those sincerely
interested in the discussion.--determining the value of principles for
delineating significant behavioral contingencies.
Please, anyone can offer a principle and win my prize, but only if you
suggest a good one.
I will again reiterate:
Since there are concievable and actual instances of birds' wings entering
snakes' mouths is this a significant contingency for the life sciences to
note and proffer explanations for? Since, the functional principle can
only delineate this situation according to each situation--sometimes yes,
sometimes no--I feel this would be a poor principle as it is tailor fit
afterwards and, therefore, possesses no heuristical force.

For example
Bruce Abbott (970727.1035)

If the bird could be shown to facilitate the survival of its own genes
through the sacrifice of its wing to a predator, it would by my

criterion

qualify as one function of the wing in the life of the bird.

So it is a fraction of the function of the wing after all?!
I specifically brought this up as ridiculous, AND IT WAS AGREED AS AND
EVEN RIDICULED AS RIDICULOUS.
Now there are appeals to examples of this across species!
Come on what type of principle is that?
Would you agree that is problematic, a principle without any heuristical
force?
But I am only picking on this one because it is the only one I've heard
yet offered.
I now up the ante to two foreign (non-American) beers or a six pack of
Shiner Bock hailing from my home state of Texas!!

I'm straight up serious, just offer a rational and heuristic principle.

i.