• Why not take a moment to introduce yourself to our members?

MaryHM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Well, when someone tells lies I don't have much use for them. Especially when they tell lies to hurt me and my business. Mitch is saying "Don't be so hard on Peter because he's the innocent victim of Frank's deception.". BULLCORN.
 

Len

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
So are you saying that Peter's numbers were published with the intent to hurt you and your business? How do you know this? The results and polling methodology might be inaccurate. But to summise nefarious intent is awefully omnipotent of you.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Peter Rubec, et al "Cyanide-free net-caught fish for he marine aquarium trade", Aquarium Sciences and Conservation 3: 37-51, 2001:

The AMDA dealers are being surveyed concerning the mortality they experienced with fish purchased from wholesalers and trans-shippers, prior to their buying certified net-caught fish. This will be followed by a survey of their experiences with cyanide-free fish. In this way, we will determine whether net-caught fish survive better, and whether they are more profitable to retailers.

The IMA plans to analyse the data and publish the results. Hence, all the information will be summarised for the aquarium trade. We plan to conduct economic analyses that examine the effects of fish mortality on profit. Many dealers are unaware of its impact to their bottom-line. Hopefully, this will provide the scientific evidence needed to convince the industry that net-caught fish are a viable economic alternative to cyanide-caught aquarium fish.

Did the AMDA survey mentioned here ever get published?
 

MaryHM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I am saying that when you publish numbers that you know were obtained in an unscientific manner, without trying to verify them in any way, and then you call them a study by IMA which is a total lie, then you are conceiving numbers with the intent to do harm. And when your intent is focused toward the marine ornamentals industry, you are harming me and my business. And Mitch and his business. And Glenn and his business. And Steve and his business. And every other individual in this industry and their businesses. Peter didn't even know me back in 2000. But his act of complete and utter irresponsibility sure does affect me now.
 

MaryHM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
The chances of an AMDA survey ever being conducted are about the same as the chances of Lallo's numbers being scientific.
 

Len

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Then say just that and leave the rest at the door. No need to ridicule his methodology as equivalent to a junior-high-schooler, or suggesting conspiracies of nefarious intent (something you can never substatiate). When you cross over to insulting individuals, you've clearly crossed the line.
 

MaryHM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I didn't say his methodology was equivalent to a junior-high-schooler. I said it was inferior. That was attackiing the method, not the person. When I typed in the conspiracy theory, I prefaced it with the tin foil hat comment so every would know that was exactly what it was.
 

MaryHM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Peter won't know what type of volume makes sense or not.

But Peter knows now- before this thread actually. We all told him several months ago. Yet he still defends Frank's numbers as an accurate representation.
 

Len

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
MaryHM":1rdonn7k said:
I didn't say his methodology was equivalent to a junior-high-schooler. I said it was inferior. That was attackiing the method, not the person. When I typed in the conspiracy theory, I prefaced it with the tin foil hat comment so every would know that was exactly what it was.

One example:

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.

Deragatory posts like this serves absolutely no useful purpose other then to humiliate people (almost always of differing viewpoint). We regard these as personal attacks. Please refrain from such comments as well as comments suggesting motive that you couldn't possibly substantiate. Simply put, post in a more civil tone. I can tell you remember the mantra: "attack the issue, not the person." Abide by it.
 

MaryHM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
The issue is his ability to publish scientifically based papers vs. fluff. When what you do is tangled up in who you are, then it's going to get personal.
 

MaryHM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
And len, unless it's true it's not humiliating. If Peter can come in here and prove that Frank's numbers are scientifically based, then I'll apologize in a heartbeat for questioning them so vehemently.
 

Len

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
And I'm telling you not to personally attack anyone. If you can't do so (and there's really no reason anyone can't), refrain from posting. There's simply too much hostility in this forum.

You wouldn't appreciate me calling your logic flawed and juvenile, would you? By your line of reasoning, I summise you'd say I am only attacking your logic, not you.

Because you are conducting personal dialogue with me, am I given license to attack you personally because this I now consider it personal? Or is it just when it affects my pocketbook? I'm neither sure where you draw the line or under what justification you're using to personally attack others.

I honestly believe if you guys can cut out the antagonism, more insightful, constructive discussions can take place. Right now, much of this forum seems hell-bent on polarizing and proving those with differing stances wrong. That isn't how progress is made. It's much wasted energy IMHO.
 

Len

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
MaryHM":3dnypkmf said:
And len, unless it's true it's not humiliating. If Peter can come in here and prove that Frank's numbers are scientifically based, then I'll apologize in a heartbeat for questioning them so vehemently.

There is a monumental difference between saying "I believe Peter's methodoloy is flawed" and "I think Peter is more inempt then a 12 year old." You don't see the difference?
 

MaryHM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Semantics.

You win, Len. I'm not going to go in circles with you all afternoon about this. I'm an evil troublemaker and you're Peter's white knight. You're right, I'm wrong. Happy happy, joy joy. Let's all hold hands and sing kum-bah-ya.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I'm going ot agree with Len on this one. If a statement is true it doesn't need fireworks. Just make your point.
 

naesco

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
MaryHM":22wpzkct said:
Semantics.

You win, Len. I'm not going to go in circles with you all afternoon about this. I'm an evil troublemaker and you're Peter's white knight. You're right, I'm wrong. Happy happy, joy joy. Let's all hold hands and sing kum-bah-ya.

Mary we are discussing serious issues here.
You may disagree with Dr. Rubec but until such time as you obtain your doctorate, publish articles on the subject at hand, etc. ,the onus in on you not Dr. Rubec to prove your postition with the opinion of another expert in the field.
 

Len

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I didn't say any of that, Mary. I'm also not here to defend Peter. I'm just trying to effectively express my point on civility to you. It's that type of response that is completely useless to us understanding one another.

BTW, semantics matter a great deal. Semantic arguments (when people argue over the meaning of the word) can sometimes get trivial and futile. But semantics itself matters. I think you have the two confused. The words we employ is our sole vechile used to convey our ideas on the internet superhighway. Thus, it's imperative you pick your words responsibly.
 

dizzy

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I join Len in not liking to see people attack each other in such a manner. I have found Peter to be one of the more honest characters I have had to deal with regarding these issues the past several years. Rick Oellers co-authored a paper with Peter on something. I can't recall exactly what it was. Rick was reporting huge loses and wanting to boycott the airlines or something. I firmly believe Rick had at least a strong role in helping to give Peter the impression that DOA was quite high on the East Coast. Now I'm not trying to suggest Rick was misleading Peter on purpose, but I do believe he influenced Peter's opinion. Am I right Peter? I would be interested to see how Peter met Frank Lallo. Mary ask Rick if he knows Frank Lallo. Ask him if he gave Peter the impression loses were very high. I prolly ask him myself at MACNA. He was on that BOD that decided not to the tell the membership about CCIF, if your account is accurate.
Mitch
 

MaryHM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Mitch,

Peter flat out stated in his paper that IMA did the study. Sorry, but that is not characteristic of one of the more honest characters I've ever met. Honesty is the best policy. ALWAYS. Because if you are anything less than honest (especially around here), you'll be outed.

Rick actually co-authored the paper we're talking about. How one small retailer in Portland, ME can serve as the example of all east coast retailers is beyond me. I don't talk to Rick anymore (not personal, just one of those "out of touch" kind of things). Rick was on the BOD at the time of the CCIF thing. But don't get the impression that there was some big coverup to the membership. Like I said earlier, CCIF was just a group of investors looking to invest in a vertically integrated chain of custody. Not some huge conspiracy or anything.
 

MaryHM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
GRRRRRRRR! And something else. I actually defended Peter to a certain exporter in Fiji who swore up and down that Peter wanted to shut the trade down. Man, am I dumb. Len, want to reprimand me for personally attacking myself? ;)
 

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:


Top