It's good to be home.
- Thread starter ShaunW
- Start date
See, now that guy's on to something. Also this is someone who clearly understands the material. Too bad he bailed on the conversation.
I guess there is such a thing as an interesting Pseudomonas! LOL!
Another funny thing I noticed around that point was that MrQuality pre-empted any finding of Pseudomonas aeruginosa as contamination. Then BLAM! Larry points out that it's a nitrifier. This is exactly what I was talking about....
I guess there is such a thing as an interesting Pseudomonas! LOL!
Another funny thing I noticed around that point was that MrQuality pre-empted any finding of Pseudomonas aeruginosa as contamination. Then BLAM! Larry points out that it's a nitrifier. This is exactly what I was talking about....
Since I just got banned from Reefcentral 
for doing nothing more than good work and dispelling an incredible misconception, I may be around alot more.
I really am shocked that doing active research in the aquarium hobby can lead to such things. In the real scientific community we celebrate new finds and active debate amonst the passionate.
[ February 10, 2005, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: solbby ]
for doing nothing more than good work and dispelling an incredible misconception, I may be around alot more.I really am shocked that doing active research in the aquarium hobby can lead to such things. In the real scientific community we celebrate new finds and active debate amonst the passionate.
[ February 10, 2005, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: solbby ]
Bomber should have been banned. Like that would ever happen... I think the outcome is making RC, gregt and Bomber look really bad.
They started a thread to protest our bans!
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showt...threadid=525241
They started a thread to protest our bans!
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showt...threadid=525241
I can't believe what GregT is up to. It's ridiculous. He thinks comments on dancing bacteria is a personal attack? I've seen much worse than this slide, heck I've typed MUCH worse than that and I'm still a member. He keeps referring to the warning he has given but his judgement is clearly way off. The man is on some kind of fish tank power trip or something. He even closed the threads so you can't respond to him!
A very slimy thing to do and I believe he should be removed as moderator
Shaun and Mr. Anderson you guys should continue your work on this site. There are ways of getting a respected following of RC user without posting on that site
A very slimy thing to do and I believe he should be removed as moderator
Shaun and Mr. Anderson you guys should continue your work on this site. There are ways of getting a respected following of RC user without posting on that site
- Location
- The Big City
It's seems that RC is trying to stop all the fights and personnel attacks, as little or inocent as they maybe, before they get really bad. In the past I've seen and have been involued in some really bad ones and nothing has happen.
Now as soon as something personel is said the moderator step in issues a warning to the person and then if it continues will close the thread.
It's not just this moderator but all the moderators on RC have taken this position up which leds me to believe this is something that has come down from the top. RC may have had some legal probably because of all the personal attacks that go on, remember there are some kids on the site and well as lawyers with nothing to do.
I had a moderator close down a thread because he thought that it was bashing the vendor and I had to send the moderator 2 pm telling him way the thread should be reopenned, which he did.
Lets face it RC was never the most friendly of place to post to. I know alot of people that have stop posted there just because of this, not what happen to Shaun, but all the personnal attacks in general.
Now as soon as something personel is said the moderator step in issues a warning to the person and then if it continues will close the thread.
It's not just this moderator but all the moderators on RC have taken this position up which leds me to believe this is something that has come down from the top. RC may have had some legal probably because of all the personal attacks that go on, remember there are some kids on the site and well as lawyers with nothing to do.
I had a moderator close down a thread because he thought that it was bashing the vendor and I had to send the moderator 2 pm telling him way the thread should be reopenned, which he did.
Lets face it RC was never the most friendly of place to post to. I know alot of people that have stop posted there just because of this, not what happen to Shaun, but all the personnal attacks in general.
I was just about to post this on RC before the thread was closed AGAIN . TOO BAD, . It may have changed the feelings.
But the day has nevertheless been exciting - I was banned, then banned again, then reinstated and never reinstated,
.
Bacteria actually do "dance" (due to Brownian motion)! That is what they look like under the microscope. What you are looking at in my micrographs are snap shots in the X,Y,Z plane. When you see it in person everything is coming in and out of focus due to Brownian motion. I thought the analogy was really cute, and decided to run with it in helping to further explain my findings under the microscope. There is a lot of information that I provided in the "dance" analogy. Please, read between the lines (and no they are not jabs at Bomber!!). I basically described my some of my findings using the analogy.
Two different preps (effect of Brownian motion) will act differently depending on a lot of different factors, but most specifically viscosity of the solution. In the controls case, the E.coli are in broth, so any movement I made on the microscope caused the bacteria to literally "jump" across the microscopes field of vision. At 100x magnification everything is more stable because you are literally taking a "birds eye" view of the slide. In the zeobak solution the bacteria were more stable, due to ?????? more viscosity.
Additionally, I had to change the exposure time on the digital camera to catch the bacteria in both cases (since on the Z-axis, you are looking at 1 slice though an estimated 5-10 slices, depending on the incremental measurement up or down.
I really am saddened by what has happened but am an avid believer of the truth and am willing to behave by explaining myself better (less scientific "babble") and let bygones be bygones.
. TOO BAD, . It may have changed the feelings.But the day has nevertheless been exciting - I was banned, then banned again, then reinstated and never reinstated,
For all involved:
Bacteria actually do "dance" (due to Brownian motion)! That is what they look like under the microscope. What you are looking at in my micrographs are snap shots in the X,Y,Z plane. When you see it in person everything is coming in and out of focus due to Brownian motion. I thought the analogy was really cute, and decided to run with it in helping to further explain my findings under the microscope. There is a lot of information that I provided in the "dance" analogy. Please, read between the lines (and no they are not jabs at Bomber!!). I basically described my some of my findings using the analogy.
Two different preps (effect of Brownian motion) will act differently depending on a lot of different factors, but most specifically viscosity of the solution. In the controls case, the E.coli are in broth, so any movement I made on the microscope caused the bacteria to literally "jump" across the microscopes field of vision. At 100x magnification everything is more stable because you are literally taking a "birds eye" view of the slide. In the zeobak solution the bacteria were more stable, due to ?????? more viscosity.
Additionally, I had to change the exposure time on the digital camera to catch the bacteria in both cases (since on the Z-axis, you are looking at 1 slice though an estimated 5-10 slices, depending on the incremental measurement up or down.
I really am saddened by what has happened but am an avid believer of the truth and am willing to behave by explaining myself better (less scientific "babble") and let bygones be bygones.
solbby, you got banned again??? for good??? damn
That whole experience was bizarre. Bomber really was being very unclear and provocative, and everything was going very smoothly until he decided to start the veiled jabs. I think he was intentionally being vague in order to later claim "that's not what I meant" if things didn't go his way.
I've concluded that Bomber was either incredibly ignorant of basic microbiology (hard to believe for a marine pathobiologist) or else trying to get a few knocks in and hoping they went unanswered, thereby solidifying an otherwise poor argument.
The two possibilities we were debating was as follows (pasted from my RC post):
"1. A claimed bacterial suspension was analyzed and found to have bacteria, consistent with the original claim. This is reasonable.
2. A claimed bacterial suspension is actually manufactured to be devoid of bacteria, but instead comes unintentionally pre-contaminated and therefore has bacteria, but these are spurious contaminants. This is not reasonable."
Logic and the existing data support the first model pretty well in my opinion. The second one has absolutely nothing to support it! Yet Bomber was arguing this scenario (very vaguely) like it was golden! It just boggles my mind that he would go down to the end on this, with nothing but cynicism to back it up. Really embarrassing for RC and Bomber, if you ask me.
It's a shame this can't even be discussed over there. In my opinion this was pretty civil compared to some real scientific arguments that I've seen.
I just had to get that off my chest.
[ February 10, 2005, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: MrAnderson ]
That whole experience was bizarre. Bomber really was being very unclear and provocative, and everything was going very smoothly until he decided to start the veiled jabs. I think he was intentionally being vague in order to later claim "that's not what I meant" if things didn't go his way.
I've concluded that Bomber was either incredibly ignorant of basic microbiology (hard to believe for a marine pathobiologist) or else trying to get a few knocks in and hoping they went unanswered, thereby solidifying an otherwise poor argument.
The two possibilities we were debating was as follows (pasted from my RC post):
"1. A claimed bacterial suspension was analyzed and found to have bacteria, consistent with the original claim. This is reasonable.
2. A claimed bacterial suspension is actually manufactured to be devoid of bacteria, but instead comes unintentionally pre-contaminated and therefore has bacteria, but these are spurious contaminants. This is not reasonable."
Logic and the existing data support the first model pretty well in my opinion. The second one has absolutely nothing to support it! Yet Bomber was arguing this scenario (very vaguely) like it was golden! It just boggles my mind that he would go down to the end on this, with nothing but cynicism to back it up. Really embarrassing for RC and Bomber, if you ask me.
It's a shame this can't even be discussed over there. In my opinion this was pretty civil compared to some real scientific arguments that I've seen.
I just had to get that off my chest.
[ February 10, 2005, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: MrAnderson ]
solbby: I got sucked into reading the thread on RC last night questioning why you were banned. I had not read the actual thread in question. I just saw this post and read through the whole thread.
I thought I was going to read something much worse than the dancing bacteria comments. I don't want to drag the issue out but the mod at RC really overreacted. I don't think he was able to admit this, that's what I found interesting reading, his apparent meltdown as people questioned the whole banning incident.
I love the info available on RC because of people like yourself who spend their own valuable time to research and then post the findings. that's my 2 cents. I'm glad your in NY, maybe we'll get to meet someday. I've not been on MR long, but I've met some great people on this site.
I thought I was going to read something much worse than the dancing bacteria comments. I don't want to drag the issue out but the mod at RC really overreacted. I don't think he was able to admit this, that's what I found interesting reading, his apparent meltdown as people questioned the whole banning incident.
I love the info available on RC because of people like yourself who spend their own valuable time to research and then post the findings. that's my 2 cents. I'm glad your in NY, maybe we'll get to meet someday. I've not been on MR long, but I've met some great people on this site.
jhale THANKS ALOT I really appreciate your kind comments!!!!
I go to all the manhattanreef events. I'm sure I'll be at the next frag swap, bidding on frags and selling/trading and giving frags away!! Just being a obsessed reefer like the rest of us, .
Well, about RC I hope that I and others can turn it back into a good and fun topic to discuss,
.
I kind of regret bringing my RC problems here to manhattanreefs. I entered into a debate that has been unfortunately brewing for quite sometime. SO,
SORRY MANHATTANREEFERS.
I go to all the manhattanreef events. I'm sure I'll be at the next frag swap, bidding on frags and selling/trading and giving frags away!! Just being a obsessed reefer like the rest of us,
.Well, about RC I hope that I and others can turn it back into a good and fun topic to discuss,
I kind of regret bringing my RC problems here to manhattanreefs. I entered into a debate that has been unfortunately brewing for quite sometime. SO,
SORRY
MANHATTANREEFERS.Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
