Seacare says... : Cdn Importer's Comment abt CYANIDE CAUGHT.

[dizzy]

Does MD have a store front or are they strickly e-tail/mo? Looking at their site I didn't see any street address.

 

[Anonymous]

Is there a post missing somewhere? Who are you quoting?

Why is me pulling something off of a companies website and questioning it called "lashing out" (note that I never accused them of anything and offered several possibilities of how they themselves could be deceived into thinking they were following their guidelines)-. I did the same exact thing to MD that Advantage did to SeaCare- he wasn't accused of lashing out or looking for a fight. I was looking to make a point.

I dind't have a problem with what you did. You just don't like Marine Depots particular choice of words and argued sematics. It wasn't lashing out. You choose an RDO sponsor to make a point about how it would be handled. And it wasn't handled any differently.

And please Rover, show me where I said they are purposefully trying to deceive people. SHOW IT TO ME. It's a short thread, so finding it shouldn't be too hard. I'll be here waiting.

I never said that was what you said. But you implied it.

1. An excellent ambiguous word to use to make people think you are trying to do something you really aren't.

Interesting, Steve. So you're saying that the major industry players know there's a cyanide problem and know what countries have a problem, but that they purposefully choose to hide it from their customers??

And unless you have some proof to back those sentiments up (implied and stated) you need to clearly state it as opinion.[/quote]

 

[MaryHM]

Is there a post missing somewhere? Who are you quoting?

Yeah, there's a missing post. From our very own James. I thought one of two things would happen if I did this.
1. It would get turned back around on me and I would get attacked- This is what James did. Apparently he had second thoughts and instead of apologizing (if he was sorry) or saying he wrote it wrong (if I misinterpreted him), he chose to delete it. Pretty chicken poo-poo if you ask me.
2. That RDO would fix the name situation asap. But looking back on it, that couldn't happen because I had already stated that RDO was doing a double standard. There's no way RDO would have deleted the names or closed the thread, because that would have proved my point. And heaven forbid Mary is ever proved right about anything!!

[q]Interesting, Steve. So you're saying that the major industry players know there's a cyanide problem and know what countries have a problem, but that they purposefully choose to hide it from their customers?? [/q]

I was asking Steve a question based on a post he made. Since when is asking a question the same as implying an accusation? And for the record, everything I say is stated as my opinion. Check my sig.

 

[jamesw]

After I re-read my post, I deleted it. Apparently at the same time as you posted yours Mary, as I can tell you are watching this thread like a hawk and posting every few minutes. I would say that my post was "live" for all of 1 minute.

I deleted it because I saw that I was disagreeing with you for no reason. You are trying to make the point that using names is a "bad idea" and I agree with that.

I don't agree with the example you used and think it's in poor taste, but I don't want to argue about it.

That's the big conspiracy I guess.

 

[Anonymous]

I was asking Steve a question based on a post he made.

Insert tongue in cheek...........

Don't play dumb just to prove a point.

 

[MaryHM]

I have the luxury of being home this morning, so yeah, I'm watching this thread "like a hawk"- guess me and Rover are the "flame hawks" of the day! I am curious though, why don't you agree with the example I used. How is that different from the one Advantage used? I don't want to argue. Just curious as to why it is different. Is it different because ** is a sponsor?

 

[MaryHM]

Rover,

I went to great care to provide several reasons why *-* may be unknowingly violating their own statement. I never intended to accuse them of trying to deceive people on purpose. In fact, I brought up some valid questions like "Do the major players even know there is a problem in Indonesia?" and "How can we educate them about this problem if they are unaware?". Shall we just forget about those questions and move on to the next boring topic? Maybe John Brandt can post a nice article for us.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm not really sure what you're upset about. Ad posted some information from Seacare's website claiming that it was a documented fact. Ad posted here for backup of that statistic since it wasn't provided on the site. Seems to me that if you are going to print "documented facts" you need to have the suporting documents or expect people to call you on it.

IMHO, pointing out a grammatical error or a not properly worded mission statement isn't quite the same. Ad didn't accuse Sea Care of lying, he simply wanted to know where the number came from. And what better place to post than here. Since it was SeaCare's site that posted the original information, it would have been hard to not include their name.

You accused Marine Depot of not following their mission statement (whether it's inadvertent or on purpose is beside the fact). Ad was looking for information, you were pointing out flaws. That's the difference to me. But I don't mind discussing either.

 

[MaryHM]

Ad didn't accuse Sea Care of lying, he simply wanted to know where the number came from. And what better place to post than here

I think the better place is to ask SeaCare directly first and wait for their answer before bringing it to a public forum. Here's a quote from dizzy on the second post of this thread:

Ad,
Those figures appear to be made up and this time it is not Mr. Koutnik with the imagination.

That statement, in my ever-so-humble opinion, reeks of accusing Tim of having an overactive imagination.

Since it was SeaCare's site that posted the original information, it would have been hard to not include their name.

Actually, it wouldn't have been hard at all. It could have been handled like this:

I have seen claims on other websites stating that there is 95% mortality in cyanide caught fish. Is there any documentation to back this figure up.

See how easy that is?? Name left out, question asked, no harm, no foul.

 

[Len]

Everyone, please refrain from personal snipes (don't make me cite examples ).

Mary,

Please be careful not to confuse the actions of individuals for the actions of Reefs.org. You have repeatedly implied or explictly accused Reefs.org of intentional unethical conduct.

My sentiments mirror that of Glenn's. In addition, it is my opinion that your actions differ from Ad Van Tage's simply because you were the one who created and enforced the no-names rule during your tenure as moderator here. Even if the content is no different (and I don't believe that to be the case), the context is vastly different. This is perhaps what James is referring to, but I'll leave it to him to clarify his own personal opinion. FWIW, I'm only stating this opinion because you asked

On a similiar note, it is my opinion (supported by post history) that if the tables were turned, this type of post would be considered a "personal attack."

Not that this should require stating, but my post is my personal opinion and does not reflect the opinion of Reefs.org.

 

[Len]

Does MD have a store front or are they strickly e-tail/mo? Looking at their site I didn't see any street address.

MD does not have a walk-in store front, although they may accept some will-calls (not sure). They do have a physical address of operation, but it is a call center and warehouse for e-tail operations.

 

[MaryHM]

And here comes Len- let the love fest begin!!

I didn't create the no names rule. JAMES DID. I enforced it, as did other rdo staff. No one personally attacked **. Let me state for the record yet again that I offered several possibilities as to why they may be mislead. I still stand by the fact that there was absolutely no need to bring up SeaCare's name in this (or the other) thread. That was the point I was trying to make. I think the "names" policy needs to be clearly spelled out here and now. I was not aware that any changes had been made to the previous policy, as nothing was ever stated by any rdo staff. So let's have it.

WHAT IS THE RDO POLICY ON NAMING NAMES???

 

[MaryHM]

Here's one thread on the names policy- started by Rover when he was still "wet behind the ears" here.

http://reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=14197

 

[Len]

There's no official policy as far as I'm aware. There has always been an encouragement not to use names out of respect for businesses and for the protection of all parties (including Reefs.org) against litagation. My apologies for mistaking the no-names policy as your brain child (an honest mistake).

Mary, if it's your opinion there was no need to bring up Seacare's name in this thread (and I'm not saying I disagree with you), then why did you bring up another company's name? I hope your reasoning isn't because "if someone else did it ...."

I think you missed my point about personal attacks It has nothing to do with whether or not I personally think your posts were attacks.

 

[dizzy]

Hey Mary,
I never said Tim made up those numbers. I think Tim is a decent sort of fellow, and he is certainly capable of speaking for himself. He used to be active on the AMDA forum. I do take issue with the documented fact claim though.
Mitch

 

[MaryHM]

GEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ Len. How many times do I have to state the same thing??? I brought up another company's name to make a point about why naming names isn't necessary and can be detrimental. There is (or at least was) a policy about not naming names. See the thread I linked to above. Both James and Chucker referred to it as a "policy".

Bottom line: Is the policy still in effect? If not, are there any rules about naming names? If so, what are they? I really think this needs to be clarified.

 

[Len]

Which goes to demonostrate another point I wanted to make to everyone: Please read what's written and infer as little as possible.

 

[MaryHM]

Dizzy,

I completely understand and realize you hold no ill will against Tim. However, the point I'm making is that we have too many lurkers in here who just skim these threads. When we name names and throw out "accusations", then there's a potential for causing detriment to the named business.

 

[Len]

GEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ Len. How many times do I have to state the same thing??? I brought up another company's name to make a point about why naming names isn't necessary and can be detrimental. There is (or at least was) a policy about not naming names. See the thread I linked to above. Both James and Chucker referred to it as a "policy".

Bottom line: Is the policy still in effect? If not, are there any rules about naming names? If so, what are they? I really think this needs to be clarified.

With all due respect, I think you're getting too emotional again. My apologies for not understanding your point earlier, but perhaps you should also shoulder some responsbility for not conveying it effectively. It's not fair to always pin the blame on the reader; the writer has as much responsibility to get his/her idea across, if not more.

That said, I still don't follow your logic. It's kinda analagous to shooting a man with a gun to prove it is detrimental.

 

[MaryHM]

Please read what's written and infer as little as possible

Which is easier said than done, Len. Especially with all of the lurkers we get on here. Lurkers that are potential customers of SeaCare. We have to assume that people do not carefully read every post in a particular thread- especially since so many of our threads tend to ramble, go off topic, degrade, etc...