Well, luckily I'm a part time genius and was able to find it myself.
I tell ya what, I constantly read and re-read on here because there is always something I miss. Here are a few things I found in my trip back through time...
A quote from Frank:
The study itself is by no means scientific nor was it meant to be.
How, may I ask, does a study that is presented as by NO MEANS SCIENTIFIC end up getting published by a scientist as reliable information in a scientific journal? This is the kind of crap that absolutely infuriates me. Peter took a bunch of numbers that had no basis in anything even remotely scientific and used them to paint the industry in a bad light. What gives with that, Peter? What was the purpose for using those unscientifically obtained numbers in a scientific journal? Just so you'd have something to say? Cripes! In deference to Len, I'm really holding back here..... (Don't get used to it, Len. I save the good stuff for Wayne.

)
In another place, Frank stated that importers, exporters, and retailers were used. How in the hell can you do a thorough interview with 270-279 individual businesses over (as Peter stated) 25 shipments each and come up with only 1067 yellow tangs. Following is some real math (not KALKulus)
276 businesses over 25 shipments each brought in a total of 1067 yellow tangs. 276x25= 6900 total shipments. 1067tangs/6900shipments is an average of .15 yellow tangs per shipment. So I'm supposed to believe that each business (some of which are IMPORTERS which by definition deal in high volume) only brought in 1 yellow tang every 6 shipments?? You've got to be joking!!!!!!!!!!!
Another gem from Frank:
Here's one for you, A young kid that worked in a store in brooklyn many years back relayed this one to me. The owner routinely mark up his DOA's intentionally so he would get free fish. When the kid asked him why he did it his reply was, How the F*&&^% do they know how many fish died.... LMAO.
And Peter was asking earlier "Why in the world would an innocent little retailer who is only interested in the truth lie about DOAs???". Well, I told you Peter. And apparently your boy Frank agrees with me.
I can't even begin to explain my disgust with what Peter has done. At least Frank was honest about the scientific validity of his numbers. If there were licenses for scientists who publish papers, Peter's should be revoked. My 7th grader could conduct better science that that. You should really be ashamed, Peter. I hope using shoddy science to back up your personal feelings toward this industry makes you feel good. And to think I used to believe you really cared about this industry and trying to work on fixing the problems. Now I think you're only interested in problems- whether real or made up- so you can have something to publish. There are times in my life when I have been so freaking naive. Once was believing the MAC line. The other was believing yours.