On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 09:20:22 -0500, Jayne Kulikauskas
wrote:

But the question hasn't been answered as to who does someone complain to if
that's not the case once it's created? Who has control over the moderators?

Nobody has control over moderators (although, in a team of moderators, they
can sometimes act as a check on each other). This why selection of
moderators is so important. One of the key tasks during the RFD is to
question moderators and reach a point where one trusts them enough to put
in this position.

The current group of mods all have minds of their own, not a one is going
to support something odd from another.

One just has to remember that when a mod passes something on it could be
seen as inflammatory if the posters involve decide to take offense at it.

So one has to ask themselves, when they feel the hair on the back of their
necks bristle, was this post really meant to offend me? I hope people will
do a double take that the moderators read it and didn't see it that way.
That the OP will take a step back, or copy & paste it to a friend to see if
being offended is even appropriate.

IOWs read a post over a few times to see if it really is offensive, or is
it just making a statement that should have been followed by appropriate
smileys. ;-) ~ jan

One just has to remember that when a mod passes something on it could be
seen as inflammatory if the posters involve decide to take offense at it.

This is true Jan, especially when the someone is directly insulted or put
down for no reason other than someone feels they didn't give a complete
enough reply to suit the insulter. Or the insulter disagrees with the
person they make the remarks to or about. Human nature is human nature.
People get offended. Most people are offended when they have disparaging
remarks directed at them and I'm sure you agree. Maybe we should all stop
and remind ourselves that what works in our pond may not be the best thing
for someone else, instead of insinuating the other person is a fool, an
idiot, a slut and the other things I've seen on this NG in the past 2 years.

Instead of dreading up what has happen in RP over the last 2 years, let's
think forward, shall we? The above won't happen in RPM. There will be times
though when proven research will trump one's personal experience. Taking
offense and/or feeling put down about that would be "looking for monsters
when there aren't any", imo.

It's one thing to be insulted when an insult is obvious, it is quite
another when one's information doesn't jive with the norm. That's not to
say you are wrong, just it doesn't jive.

Case in point, we purchased a Prius, I've since seen articles saying the
gas mileage is only ~ 38, and they're not worth the extra money, etc. These
articles were in the newspaper written by those who get paid to express
their opinion weekly. They neither owed a Priss nor were car experts. Yet
other than being peeved for 5 seconds, it sure wasn't worth my time to
counter their point. Btw, owning one for a year I've averaged 45 mpg. If
son is over there for oil, as some claim, I'm doing my part to lessen our
need to be there. ~ jan ;-)

~ janj wrote:
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 09:20:22 -0500, Jayne Kulikauskas
wrote:

But the question hasn't been answered as to who does someone complain
to if that's not the case once it's created? Who has control over the
moderators?
[ . . . ]

People could always complain in rec.ponds if they feel their post was
unjustifiably rejected in rec.ponds.moderated.

That has worked pretty with rejected posters in soc,religion.islam
(moderated), who have posted their complaints in alt.religion.islam
(unmoderated). On occasion, one or more of the moderators will explain, but
the rest of us, especially those who have also experienced rejection, also
chime in. Of course, sometimes the complaint is just a rant. Sound
familiar?

--
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:
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 09:20:22 -0500, Jayne Kulikauskas
wrote:

But the question hasn't been answered as to who does someone complain
to if that's not the case once it's created? Who has control over the
moderators?
[ . . . ]

People could always complain in rec.ponds if they feel their post was
unjustifiably rejected in rec.ponds.moderated.

That has worked pretty well with rejected posters in soc,religion.islam
(moderated), who have posted their complaints in alt.religion.islam
(unmoderated). On occasion, one or more of the moderators will explain, but
the rest of us, especially those who have also experienced rejection, also
chime in. Of course, sometimes the complaint is just a rant. Sound
familiar?

--
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:
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 09:20:22 -0500, Jayne Kulikauskas
wrote:

But the question hasn't been answered as to who does someone complain
to if that's not the case once it's created? Who has control over the
moderators?
[ . . . ]

People could always complain in rec.ponds if they feel their post was
unjustifiably rejected in rec.ponds.moderated.

That has worked pretty well with rejected posters in soc.religion.islam
(moderated), who have posted their complaints in alt.religion.islam
(unmoderated). On occasion, one or more of the moderators will explain, but
the rest of us, especially those who have also experienced rejection, also
chime in. Of course, sometimes the complaint is just a rant. Sound
familiar?

--
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
...
One just has to remember that when a mod passes something on it could be
seen as inflammatory if the posters involve decide to take offense at
it.

This is true Jan, especially when the someone is directly insulted or put
down for no reason other than someone feels they didn't give a complete
enough reply to suit the insulter. Or the insulter disagrees with the
person they make the remarks to or about. Human nature is human nature.
People get offended. Most people are offended when they have disparaging
remarks directed at them and I'm sure you agree. Maybe we should all stop
and remind ourselves that what works in our pond may not be the best thing
for someone else, instead of insinuating the other person is a fool, an
idiot, a slut and the other things I've seen on this NG in the past 2
years.

Instead of dreading up what has happen in RP over the last 2 years, let's
think forward, shall we? The above won't happen in RPM. There will be
times
though when proven research will trump one's personal experience. Taking
offense and/or feeling put down about that would be "looking for monsters
when there aren't any", imo.

In in mine also! But I respect personal experience as well. The feed is an
example is it not? Your kio thrive on it and I have hundreds of stunted
fish. As for research. Remember Jan, they did research in HRT and it was
supposed to prevent osteoporosis, early aging and heart disease. Then
WHOOPSIE!!!! All these years later they find it not only doesn't prevent
those things - it stimulates breast cancer and kills. Research proved birth
control pills were safe - but OH NO!!!! it killed us women with blood clots.
Research gone bad? Then there was research that showed transfats and how
healthy they were compared to animal fats..... but BY GEORGE!!!!... now we
know transfats are so dangerous NYC banned their use in restaurant
foods....... need I go on? Why should I blindly believe research into
fish foods when the research where humans are concerned is so horrendous, so
poor and ultimately proved so wrong and in some cases so deadly? Sorry Jan,
I have little faith in research and with good reason. I'm sure *this side
of research* would be brought out in any discussion of research - do you
agree?

It's one thing to be insulted when an insult is obvious, it is quite
another when one's information doesn't jive with the norm. That's not to
say you are wrong, just it doesn't jive.

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.

Case in point, we purchased a Prius, I've since seen articles saying the
gas mileage is only ~ 38, and they're not worth the extra money, etc.
These
articles were in the newspaper written by those who get paid to express
their opinion weekly. They neither owed a Priss nor were car experts.

Then their opinion should be taken with a grain of salt........

Yet
other than being peeved for 5 seconds, it sure wasn't worth my time to
counter their point. Btw, owning one for a year I've averaged 45 mpg. If
son is over there for oil, as some claim, I'm doing my part to lessen our
need to be there. ~ jan ;-)

:-)
--
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

wrote in message
...
~ janj wrote:
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 09:20:22 -0500, Jayne Kulikauskas
wrote:

But the question hasn't been answered as to who does someone complain
to if that's not the case once it's created? Who has control over the
moderators?
[ . . . ]

People could always complain in rec.ponds if they feel their post was
unjustifiably rejected in rec.ponds.moderated.

That has worked pretty with rejected posters in soc,religion.islam
(moderated), who have posted their complaints in alt.religion.islam
(unmoderated). On occasion, one or more of the moderators will explain,
but
the rest of us, especially those who have also experienced rejection, also
chime in. Of course, sometimes the complaint is just a rant. Sound
familiar?

Gotcha kid! ;-)

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

I do, and used to volunteer at a VFW club in Queens NY. The one my dad
belonged to for years.

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

I think every veteran for the freedom my family and myself enjoy.
--
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

In in mine also! But I respect personal experience as well. The feed is an
example is it not? Your kio thrive on it and I have hundreds of stunted
fish. As for research. Remember Jan, they did research in HRT and it was
supposed to prevent osteoporosis, early aging and heart disease. Then
WHOOPSIE!!!! All these years later they find it not only doesn't prevent
those things - it stimulates breast cancer and kills. Research proved birth
control pills were safe - but OH NO!!!! it killed us women with blood clots.
Research gone bad? Then there was research that showed transfats and how
healthy they were compared to animal fats..... but BY GEORGE!!!!... now we
know transfats are so dangerous NYC banned their use in restaurant
foods....... need I go on?

No. Because you just missed the big picture. All of the above was found out
by further RESEARCH! Sheesh.

Why should I blindly believe research into
fish foods when the research where humans are concerned is so horrendous, so
poor and ultimately proved so wrong and in some cases so deadly? Sorry Jan,
I have little faith in research and with good reason. I'm sure *this side
of research* would be brought out in any discussion of research - do you
agree?

No. See statement above.

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?

That researcher would want to see your control group. The food may have had
nothing to do with the problem. Generics and environment still play a big
part. Perhaps you got an old batch of food. Lots of variables unless done
under controlled conditions. Research is always based on controls, I'll
trust the research... and even if it is wrong, they'll come back and tell
me so... because they continue researching.

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.

I'm afraid what I see is the possibly that you're going to take offense if
someone counters your experience with theirs (good, bad or indifferent) and
backs theirs up with research by professionals. ~ jan

"~ janj" wrote in message
...
In in mine also! But I respect personal experience as well. The feed is
an
example is it not? Your kio thrive on it and I have hundreds of stunted
fish. As for research. Remember Jan, they did research in HRT and it was
supposed to prevent osteoporosis, early aging and heart disease. Then
WHOOPSIE!!!! All these years later they find it not only doesn't prevent
those things - it stimulates breast cancer and kills. Research proved
birth
control pills were safe - but OH NO!!!! it killed us women with blood
clots.
Research gone bad? Then there was research that showed transfats and how
healthy they were compared to animal fats..... but BY GEORGE!!!!... now we
know transfats are so dangerous NYC banned their use in restaurant
foods....... need I go on?

No. Because you just missed the big picture. All of the above was found
out
by further RESEARCH! Sheesh.

Jan - you missed my point entirely. What will *further research* learn
about fish food? Sheeeeeesh! I have little faith in research and for good
reasons. There are hundreds of cases like the ones I mentioned.


Why should I blindly believe research into
fish foods when the research where humans are concerned is so horrendous,
so
poor and ultimately proved so wrong and in some cases so deadly? Sorry
Jan,
I have little faith in research and with good reason. I'm sure *this
side
of research* would be brought out in any discussion of research - do you
agree?

No. See statement above.

So YOU believe we should keep the poor research and all the wrong and
sometimes deadly results hidden? Why Jan? What's the point in that? People
have DIED because of poor researcher coming to wrong conclusions. Pointing
out how poorly done some research is, it should be pointed out, especially
when the researcher is or may be financially involved with the product they
researched.

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?

That researcher would want to see your control group.

My control group, fat and sassy (last years fry) have already all be sold
last spring. They were raised on Catfish and Trout chow with treats of
kitten and puppy chow.

The food may have had
nothing to do with the problem. Generics and environment still play a big
part. Perhaps you got an old batch of food.

Same conditions (same tanks and same filters with the same pumps) and same
parent fish Jan. Fresh food right from the Ichabon factory from an Aquarium
store in Nashville. He gets in a fresh load every spring.

Lots of variables unless done
under controlled conditions. Research is always based on controls, I'll
trust the research... and even if it is wrong, they'll come back and tell
me so... because they continue researching.

Of course they will, even if the medication, diet or other recommendations
have killed you with fatal blood clots or breast cancer.

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.

I'm afraid what I see is the possibly that you're going to take offense if
someone counters your experience with theirs (good, bad or indifferent)
and
backs theirs up with research by professionals. ~ jan

No Jan. I will *not* take offense if a food your fish thrived on left me
with several hundred undersized fry. It just proves to me one more time how
unreliable (and sometimes deadly) *research* can be and often is. What I
will take offense at is being called a drunk, a slut and an idiot (and other
insinuations) because what worked for you or Snooze or Joe Blow didn't work
for me and Jane Doe etc. Remember there were a few others also using these
cheaper chows and they had no problems with them either. Fish were not
dying of fatty livers and no one complained of undersized fry. How much
plainer can I make it for you? :-)

BTW, I wonder what other things, what other research findings we're
accepting as gospel today - that new research will prove wrong
tomorrow...... to someone's great sorrow or even death, possibly even yours.
--
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

Arbitrarily buying a bag of "___________" and feeding it to anyhtng is
sure a scientific study for sure. No control no documentation to base
so called findings on, and its all speculation. More to saying the
fish look good and got fat and grew fast...certainly more to it than
that........Your methods of running a test is not even close to being
substantial in any findings you think you have discovered......You
just saved somne moeny is all you did and the fish more than likely
gained nothing but a full belly of junk food.

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 03:17:53 GMT, ~ janj wrote:

In in mine also! But I respect personal experience as well. The feed is an
example is it not? Your kio thrive on it and I have hundreds of stunted
fish. As for research. Remember Jan, they did research in HRT and it was
supposed to prevent osteoporosis, early aging and heart disease. Then
WHOOPSIE!!!! All these years later they find it not only doesn't prevent
those things - it stimulates breast cancer and kills. Research proved birth
control pills were safe - but OH NO!!!! it killed us women with blood clots.
Research gone bad? Then there was research that showed transfats and how
healthy they were compared to animal fats..... but BY GEORGE!!!!... now we
know transfats are so dangerous NYC banned their use in restaurant
foods....... need I go on?

No. Because you just missed the big picture. All of the above was found out
by further RESEARCH! Sheesh.

Why should I blindly believe research into
fish foods when the research where humans are concerned is so horrendous, so
poor and ultimately proved so wrong and in some cases so deadly? Sorry Jan,
I have little faith in research and with good reason. I'm sure *this side
of research* would be brought out in any discussion of research - do you
agree?

No. See statement above.

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?

That researcher would want to see your control group. The food may have had
nothing to do with the problem. Generics and environment still play a big
part. Perhaps you got an old batch of food. Lots of variables unless done
under controlled conditions. Research is always based on controls, I'll
trust the research... and even if it is wrong, they'll come back and tell
me so... because they continue researching.

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.

I'm afraid what I see is the possibly that you're going to take offense if
someone counters your experience with theirs (good, bad or indifferent) and
backs theirs up with research by professionals. ~ jan



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

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 08:40:35 -0600, Zëbulon
wrote:

snip a bunch of invalid crap:

Where is the control groups comparason to your so called facts? Where
is your documentaiton and how long has this test of tfood gone on?
What methods have you used to substantiate yur claims as to actual
weight gains and color reditions. IS it weight gains due to fatty
deposits or is it actual meat......no clue, then it sure is not worth
discussing since there is no validity to it. Its sheer speculation
which does not prove a thing. Afterall there is many foods they will
eat and grow and look good on but are they reallyt as healthy as yu
are led to believe..I doubt it.




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

No. Because you just missed the big picture. All of the above was found
out by further RESEARCH! Sheesh.

Jan - you missed my point entirely. What will *further research* learn
about fish food? Sheeeeeesh! I have little faith in research and for good
reasons. There are hundreds of cases like the ones I mentioned.

Totally illogical. I read this as saying, since a few research projects
have been wrong, all research is wrong. *Perhaps even the research that
says the first research is wrong!* Sure hope you're not taking any meds for
anything that ails you, since those meds were created via research.

So YOU believe we should keep the poor research and all the wrong and
sometimes deadly results hidden? Why Jan? What's the point in that?

You know what. I'm not going to discuss something that has nothing to do
with fish food.

My control group, fat and sassy (last years fry) have already all be sold
last spring. They were raised on Catfish and Trout chow with treats of
kitten and puppy chow.

Doesn't work that way Carol. Sorry. You'll never get into a science journal
based on that. At the very least one would have to open some of the fish up
and see are them just as fat (yea, I bet they are) and sassy on the inside
as the out side.

Same conditions (same tanks and same filters with the same pumps) and same
parent fish Jan. Fresh food right from the Ichabon factory from an Aquarium
store in Nashville. He gets in a fresh load every spring.

But all we have is your say so Carol. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to jump
on the band wagon of one person saying this worked for them when all the
research says other wise, and a lot of people with more money in this hobby
then I'll ever spend in a lifetime follow the research. You can try to
convince the masses, but you're not going to convince me. So have the last
word, as I know you will.

No Jan. I will *not* take offense if a food your fish thrived on left me
with several hundred undersized fry. It just proves to me one more time how
unreliable (and sometimes deadly) *research* can be and often is. What I
will take offense at is being called a drunk, a slut and an idiot (and other
insinuations) because what worked for you or Snooze or Joe Blow didn't work
for me and Jane Doe etc.

Well I FOR ONE HAVE NEVER EVER CALLED YOU THOSE NAMES OR ANY NAMES! If
you've taken my disagreements/rebuttals as inferring to that, than that is
your problem, and shame on you for even putting MY name in with the likes
of those who do such. ~ jan

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:17:53 -0600, Tristan
wrote:

Arbitrarily buying a bag of "___________" and feeding it to anyhtng is
sure a scientific study for sure. No control no documentation to base
so called findings on, and its all speculation. More to saying the
fish look good and got fat and grew fast...certainly more to it than
that........Your methods of running a test is not even close to being
substantial in any findings you think you have discovered......You
just saved somne moeny is all you did and the fish more than likely
gained nothing but a full belly of junk food.

Now this is a good example moderators. Would we allow this post?

It could be consider inflammatory, yet it doesn't call anyone any nasty
names. I'd have to pass it, but than would *I*, as a moderator, be
considered bias because the above poster just happens to agree with
me? ~ jan

~ janj wrote:

It could be consider inflammatory, yet it doesn't call anyone any nasty
names. I'd have to pass it, but than would *I*, as a moderator, be
considered bias because the above poster just happens to agree with
me? ~ jan

IMO you should post it if you become a moderator....part of an ongoing
discussion with valid points - I don't actually see this as inflammatory
- just disagreeing with the comments being made....and there are no
insults contained within - just a difference of opinion.....Sameways if
I posted this on the same topic I would expect it to get posted (and I
don't need to own a pond to do so)

It easy to argue that a certain type of food produces large and fat
fish...but then again you can look at a human fed on junk food all of
their life - large and fat - healthy I very much doubt it....but then
again it will depend on the quality of the "inappropiate food" being
fed....if it is designed to produce well nourished puppies and kitties
then maybe it will not cause fish to become obese but potentially is
missing essential nutrients for the species of creature you are feeding
and so therefore not suitable - the nutritional requirements of all are
different but generally we tend to make this decision based on species
- one creatures good is another creatures bad....my fish don't get my
cat food - my cat sure enjoys any spilt fish food....I'm not about to
start feeding either on food nutritienly made up for either (and it has
to be said it would get well expensive feeding my cat on fish food -
volume speaks for itself) - manufactured feeds are designed for the
animal/creature in question.....

I don't need to have a pond to make this post - it's still on-topic and
contains no attacks....

Gill

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 19:57:48 GMT, ~ janj wrote:

No. Because you just missed the big picture. All of the above was found
out by further RESEARCH! Sheesh.

Jan - you missed my point entirely. What will *further research* learn
about fish food? Sheeeeeesh! I have little faith in research and for good
reasons. There are hundreds of cases like the ones I mentioned.

Totally illogical. I read this as saying, since a few research projects
have been wrong, all research is wrong. *Perhaps even the research that
says the first research is wrong!* Sure hope you're not taking any meds for
anything that ails you, since those meds were created via research.

So YOU believe we should keep the poor research and all the wrong and
sometimes deadly results hidden? Why Jan? What's the point in that?

You know what. I'm not going to discuss something that has nothing to do
with fish food.

My control group, fat and sassy (last years fry) have already all be sold
last spring. They were raised on Catfish and Trout chow with treats of
kitten and puppy chow.

Now thats one heck of a control group. How many were killed and a
aautopsy performed to check actual body fat or look for extraneous
growths and other organs that gained or lost to much. NONE.....so
there is not any basis to claim your staements and findings on. They
are meaningless. I know a few poeple who looked fine too, picture of
health that droppe dover dead, and their main diets were junk food
too.....amazing how looks can certainly fool you. Looks is only
secondary to actual fact finding from microscopic and other processes.
Don't give up yur day job to i run "controled experiments"

Doesn't work that way Carol. Sorry. You'll never get into a science journal
based on that. At the very least one would have to open some of the fish up
and see are them just as fat (yea, I bet they are) and sassy on the inside
as the out side.


No, she won;t but I bet she could be a center fold in Mad Magazine.
They tend to run articles and think along the lines of her so called
experiment.
Same conditions (same tanks and same filters with the same pumps) and same
parent fish Jan. Fresh food right from the Ichabon factory from an Aquarium
store in Nashville. He gets in a fresh load every spring.

Proves nothing at all without FULL precise disections etc afterwards
along with the control group.

But all we have is your say so Carol. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to jump
on the band wagon of one person saying this worked for them when all the
research says other wise, and a lot of people with more money in this hobby
then I'll ever spend in a lifetime follow the research. You can try to
convince the masses, but you're not going to convince me. So have the last
word, as I know you will.

Carol your word does not have much honesty or integrity to it anymore.
It is about like a weather man and the forecast. They say one thng and
something else occurs.

No Jan. I will *not* take offense if a food your fish thrived on left me
with several hundred undersized fry. It just proves to me one more time how
unreliable (and sometimes deadly) *research* can be and often is. What I
will take offense at is being called a drunk, a slut and an idiot (and other
insinuations) because what worked for you or Snooze or Joe Blow didn't work
for me and Jane Doe etc.

Odds are you skimped on feeding the fish the proper amount since your
so concerned with saving money yuy have to resort to feeding cat food
or catfish chow.....I can totally understand why yur fish failed to
thrive ona wellknown and recognized diet. You got to give them the
proper amount and not count the pennies if your gonna commit yourself
to it. Perhaps cheapskate or cheapass ponder would be a better title
foroyou than frugal. Big difference.


Where oh where do yoou come up with the so called atrocities yur
accusiing all these poeple of. I have heard yu called a lot of t hngs
over the years carol, and lady certainly was not one of them nor was
drunk......the folks your fooling with couod not be bothered to use
such penny arsed limp names. Play with the big dogs you get bite, so
yuou should have stayed on the porch, and worked crossword puzzles.

Well I FOR ONE HAVE NEVER EVER CALLED YOU THOSE NAMES OR ANY NAMES! If
you've taken my disagreements/rebuttals as inferring to that, than that is
your problem, and shame on you for even putting MY name in with the likes
of those who do such. ~ jan


I think yu9u owe Jan an appolkogy, not that my opinon means anything
to youo, but out of all th eposts yu made and dissrespect I have never
seen Jan dog cuss anyone nno matter who they were......or what they
said. Abiut all it ever got out of Jan was a PLONK! Perhaps yur
interpretation of a PLONK means something entirely different than what
it means to everyone else. Care to give us an explanatinn Carol? Now I
am not saying Jan and some others robably did not really wanto to leta
few chice words fly, but I do not recall nay Jan may have said to you
that would be deemed profane or harsh!




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