Why Wilson is Tim the Toolmans neighbor, doncha know!


On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 02:16:02 GMT, ~ janj wrote:

I wasn't going to give it more printed space, especially since it
contained other peoples names who wouldn't appreciate it. But it is nice
to have when someone turns a good discussion into an argument. One can
always google and find stuff. ;-) ~ jan

Do you know Kevin S. Wilson? ;-D

Don't know Wilson, except for the Wilson from Castaway that kept Tom Hanks
company on the island. ;-)

Sorry. He's an alt.food.barbecue joke who often Googles archives to find
stuff to turn a good discussion into an argument. ;-(



Why I did not copy and paste it here, after all I wasn't fond of it the
first time I read it. ~ jan

Isn't this just precious? I love Jan's sense of humor LOL


-------
I forgot more about ponds and koi than I'll ever know!

I wasn't going to give it more printed space, especially since it
contained other peoples names who wouldn't appreciate it. But it is nice
to have when someone turns a good discussion into an argument. One can
always google and find stuff. ;-) ~ jan

Do you know Kevin S. Wilson? ;-D

Don't know Wilson, except for the Wilson from Castaway that kept Tom Hanks
company on the island. ;-)

Sorry. He's an alt.food.barbecue joke who often Googles archives to find
stuff to turn a good discussion into an argument. ;-(

Why I did not copy and paste it here, after all I wasn't fond of it the
first time I read it. ~ jan

~ janj wrote:
I wasn't going to give it more printed space, especially since it
contained other peoples names who wouldn't appreciate it. But it is
nice to have when someone turns a good discussion into an argument.
One can always google and find stuff. ;-) ~ jan

Do you know Kevin S. Wilson? ;-D

Don't know Wilson, except for the Wilson from Castaway that kept Tom
Hanks company on the island. ;-)

Sorry. He's an alt.food.barbecue joke who often Googles archives to find
stuff to turn a good discussion into an argument. ;-(

Why I did not copy and paste it here, after all I wasn't fond of it the
first time I read it. ~ jan

Sorry, Jan. I was just trying to inject a little humor, while at the same
time pointing out that a sword can cut both ways. KSW is in my killfile, as
are many jerks on several NGs. I don't have a high threshold for
troublemakers or idiots. Sorry if I offended you in any way. That was not
my intent. ;-)

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!

Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !
~Semper Fi~

"Derek Broughton" wrote in message
...
Zëbulon wrote:

That is not what I meant Derek. I can't seem to make myself clear. :*(
Research is necessary and I realize that. But research done yesterday,
claiming what is GOOD for us may be superseded by even NEWER research
tomorrow disproving these truths. Meanwhile, how many people were harmed
taking the research as gospel? Knowing what one researcher claims can be
disproved by different researcher, why take it as gospel?

Gospel, never, but because essentially science is a collaborative field,
it's not unreasonable to put a degree of faith in the results. By the
time
science in the field of health is deemed acceptably well researched to be
applied to the public, a great many scientists have seen the data and had
a
chance to disprove it. Unfortunately the HRT experience proved that a
number of unreasonable assumptions had never been questioned - but even
scientists are human.

Exactly. But it's not just the hormones Derek. This applies to many other
areas as well, and that's what makes me suspicious of research results they
come up with. How is it every dog food company claims their research,
tests, etc shows their food is the best? How can they all be the best?

Mistakes will happen, and one reason this one did is
that after the thalidomide disaster researchers and ethics boards have
been
extremely reluctant to test drugs on women.

Trans-fats is easy - we keep narrowing down the list of inputs and
separating out those that are bad from those that aren't (but aren't
necessarily _good_).

But this applies to feeds as well. I remember when I first got online I was
told goldfish were primarily vegetarians and to keep the protein low and
blah, blah..... now it seems it's the opposite. High protein foods are
the way to go. See where I'm coming from? Next month I may be seeing that
high protein damages their [take your choice of an organ] and to keep
protein below xx %. I now take it all with grain of salt. Speaking of
salt. We all remember those debates. :-)

I have little faith in Doctors - but I still know that I want to see one
if
I break a leg and probably if I find a tumor.

This is true. I have little faith in them myself. An online Dr. from
another Forum saved me from having painful surgery on my feet (fasciitis) a
few years ago. All it took were simple exercises to stretch the fasiia that
could be done at home for free. This save our insurance company thousands
and myself a lot of pain and down time. Greed anyone? The exercises
wouldn't have made my Dr a dime.

Which all neatly sidesteps the issue of feeding cheap food to pricey koi.

Anyone who can afford *pricey koi* and plans to live to an advanced age,
....well, they probably don't care what the fish food costs or how fast their
fry grow. ;-)
--
ZB....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*







--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Gill Passman" wrote in message
...


Ok, this is way off topic but I kind of wonder how many of those cancers
allegedly to be caused by HRT in fact were (and I am not saying that some
weren't and have not been illustrated to have been so - Oh and by what -
research I believe...it is a risk factor on cancer assessment these
days)...and if there was a control study done to quantify how many women
not on HRT also fell foul of the same disease and if these statistics
actually match....

Sometimes getting the whole story where research is concerned is difficult.
My NP is now discouraging the use of HRT. Not only did the research show
the HRT was of no benefit (negating earlier research) to bones and nor
helped prevent heart disease but the breast cancer rate was so much higher
they stopped the study altogether. Anyone with the patience can find the
details online. What happened with the FIRST research? How did the
researches miss this? We're talking some serious issues here and with human
beings - not fish or dogs.

and indeed how much the press in all of our
respective countries jumped on the bandwagon to vilify a valid treatment
for a lot of women going through the menapause with a scare tactic that
"incidents of cancer are higher in those taking this drug" - thing is more
women take HRT than ever happened before...women still get cancer...more
women take the drug so by definition you get a higher percentage of those
taking the drug that now get cancer than you would do if fewer women took
HRT...Statistics, statistics and more damn lies masked as statistics...

There you go! So who the hell do we trust? Too much research is backed by
those with an agenda, those who will benefit in some way by certain results.

..looking at statistical research is one thing -
and I am not saying an invalid form of research but needs backing up by
science as well....Breast cancer is on the increase, consumption of HRT
meds are on the increase ergo HRT is the problem and the research is
flawed....

A lot of research is flawed I learned on another NG.

a little bit of "research" would actually show that the
increase in breast cancer cases is within the "pre-menopausal" group of
women....who haven't even sniffed an HRT tab let alone taken one....and
then lets look at the whole factors in an increase in pre-menopausal
breast cancer and I believe that "research" although not giving a
definitive answer is suggesting that the stress of modern living plays a
big part in all of this - might explain the increase in young as well as
old....

A few years ago there was a connection between obesity and breast cancers.
Whoopsie.... that research seems to have gone out the window now. I
recently read in the Tennessean there's a connection between underweight
women and BC. What next? A connection between owning a cat and BC?
Wearing leather shoes and BC?


Research gives us a chance of understanding such things....the survival
rate of a breast cancer patient is now infinitely higher than it was 10
years ago and unimaginable 20 years ago....and how did this happen....oh,
forgive me, it was research....well on a personal level long may research
continue.....Just a few years ago, without the research, every woman with
breast cancer was condemned to death....now there is hope....why...I
believe it is down to research and developing stuff they find out and more
research....and then treating people to give them true hope of getting
through this disease....and those they can't help giving them a few more
years to see their children grow up to an age when they can actually
remember who Mummy was....

Research into CURES I'll put more faith in. Research and studies as to what
causes most BC - I'll back off on.

Now to pull this whole thing back on topic - which technically is
off-topic for the subject line but on topic for rec.ponds - no commercial
company producing fish food is about to produce bogus research claiming
that their feed is better than dog or cat food for feeding fish....they
will spend millions perfecting a good diet specifically aimed at promoting
the growth, health and well-being of the fish it is sold to feed....if
they didn't they would be straight down in the dung heap.....people can go
out and "research" what food is best...

What's best under one set of circumstances may not be under another. Would
you or I consider the Eskimo diet of blubber and high protein the healthiest
diet there is for a human? What about that African tribe that exists on the
blood of cattle (they bleed them with a sharp reed) and greens? What would
they think of our American or the UK diet? Could they thrive on it? Could
we thrive on blubber, dried caribou, fish and a few berries in the summer?
Yet these people are healthy, reproducing and many live to a ripe old age
mostly free of the diseases of the Industrialized Nations.

but I'm sorry I have no issues in stating that food designed for
a specific animal is designed just with that animal in mind....if any
animal food provider was proven to just adapt their feedstuff by one or
two minerals/vitamins rather than fundementally providing a nutritional
balance for the creature in question they would go out of business quicker
than their b*tts could touch the ground - especially in the US where it
would almost get sued quicker than they could say the word "b*tt"....

Fish food for fish, Cat food for cats, dog food for dogs....mcd*n*lds for
those that occassionally enjoy a treat but not as a staple diet....

Treats! There you go! A small high-protein part of the diet and they loved
it. ;-)


Gill

PS Apologies all but this is a subject I feel strongly about even if it is
sort of "off-topic"

So do I as I bought the BS about HRT and trans-fats for years............ I
never suspected research or studies could come to such wrong conclusions on
such life and death matters. As for the fish foods. I may feed the older
fish a mix with some expensive foods but as for the fry..... these koi are
8 moths old and most are only 2" to 2 1/2" long.

--
ZB....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*







--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Sorry. He's an alt.food.barbecue joke who often Googles archives to find
stuff to turn a good discussion into an argument. ;-( Nick

Why I did not copy and paste it here, after all I wasn't fond of it the
first time I read it. ~ jan

Sorry, Jan. I was just trying to inject a little humor, while at the same
time pointing out that a sword can cut both ways. KSW is in my killfile, as
are many jerks on several NGs. I don't have a high threshold for
troublemakers or idiots. Sorry if I offended you in any way. That was not
my intent. ;-)

No offense taken, gave me reason to restate why I wasn't doing a C&P. ;-) I
don't wantta end up in anyone's killfile, at least, not for doing stupid
stuff. ;-) ~ jan

A lot of research is flawed I learned on another NG.

And we all know everything on the internet is true. NGs contained more
incorrect information than bonafide research. ~ jan

~ janj wrote:
A lot of research is flawed I learned on another NG.

And we all know everything on the internet is true. NGs contained more
incorrect information than bonafide research. ~ jan

1. To say nothing of the plethora of medical/dietary/etc URLs.

2. You snipped off the attribution for the quoted text! ;-)

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!

Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !
~Semper Fi~

"~ janj" wrote in message
news
A lot of research is flawed I learned on another NG.

And we all know everything on the internet is true. NGs contained more
incorrect information than bonafide research. ~ jan
====================
This is true. But it was the websites I read that they sent me to at the
time, not just someone's opinion.
--
ZB....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*





--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 16:29:29 -0600, Zëbulon wrote:

...
See above. What's norm in your pond may not be the norm in mine and I now
have hundreds of worthless fish to prove it. Where's that researcher now?
Does it jive with the research? I'd like to wring their necks. If
information doesn't jive with your (not you in particular) beliefs then join
in for Pete's sake, nothing wrong with that, but don't try and make the
person look like an idiot because something else worked for them - or what
they say doesn't jive with some research or something read somewhere in some
book or website. :-) I hope you can see my point.
...

Lots of times (most of the time?) it isn't the research or the researcher.
Research and the results of research are often quite mundane and boring.
The "they" is usually someone in between the researcher and the public. It
may be as overt as a feed company spinning results into something favorable
to their product, or it may be a reporter looking for a simple, glamorous
subject. I don't deny that there is the occasional researcher that edits
their data, but more often than not rotten information is simply the
assertion of someone who may have done little or no research.

Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Illiterate? Write for FREE help