Todd Moody wrote:

> This is just a terminological problem, I guess.  Both you and
> Jacques are using "tolerance" in a way that requires
> immunological involvement.  Is there some reason for restricting
> it in this way?  Is it a special technical meaning perhaps?  I'm
> just asking for clarification here.  I don't understand why you
> are restricting the meaning of the term in this way.

In my book, adaptation always implies genetic adaptation. If you are adapted to
something, you are adapted to it period. Tolerance implies non-adaptation.You
can be not adapted to something and still be tolerating it, which is called
"tolerant" or not adapted to something and not tolerating it, which is called
"intolerant". There always is an immunological involvement.

Jacques