On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 10:14:04 -0400, Amadeus Schmidt <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 09:28:30 -0400, Philip Thrift <[log in to unmask]>
>wrote:
>
>>HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_841000/841839.stm">
>>>Click here: BBC News | SCI/TECH | Robot has sweet tooth</A>
>>
>>But http://www.msnbc.com/news/435050.asp?cp1=1
>>
>>   “The ideal fuel in terms of energy gain, is meat.
>>   Vegetation is not nearly as nutritious,” Wilkinson said.
>

I wrote:
>Btw: What Wilkinson *did* say is:
>"If you look at pure energy, then meat has a
>higher calorific value than vegetation. But
>there are downsides. You have to spend more
>energy luring it, catching it and killing it. At the
>moment I'm concentrating on using vegetation
>like a cow, rather than building a meat-eating
>robot."
>Quite different, to what you reported, i think.

My apology to Philip.

You only cited from the second source from msnbc instead of the bbc text.
The real sense-changing alteration between the two texts on the same
topic  was done by some anonymous reporter in between.
Doesn't speak for msnbc.
I'm sorry that I thought Philip did it.

Amadeus