A
Anonymous
Guest
Never Mind 
Borneman's Reefkeeping Magazine article
- Thread starter dizzy
- Start date
A
Anonymous
Guest
dizzy":lvmyygl9 said:
Eric accused Bomber of owning illegal corals.
And another guy starts with an S said that Bomber was nothing more than a dive boat guide.
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
Perhaps the evolution of excessive expertise in one area requires a lapse in others...like thicker skin and the ability to regard criticism as normal and natural especially in science.
There are few however that accept criticism as badly as journalists and reporters. Spending a lifetime nailing others to the wall... they are hardly cool about it when the pen gets turned around.
Our online Democracy is often a blend of good science, junk science, self promotion and **** school journalism.
Research crosses over and morphs into popular article writing....and then, the writer wants the same respect accorded when the writings were actually research. [ I learned this working in the company of scientists where I've been for a long time]
Credentials in one field are not so easily transferrable to the next and the next.
If all discourse ends however every time things get testy....imagine how short lived would be the dialogue and the learning process.
In the memorable words of Rod in Jerry Mcquire;
"Jerry, sometime just when we're staring to communicate, you think we're fightin". :?
Steve
There are few however that accept criticism as badly as journalists and reporters. Spending a lifetime nailing others to the wall... they are hardly cool about it when the pen gets turned around.
Our online Democracy is often a blend of good science, junk science, self promotion and **** school journalism.
Research crosses over and morphs into popular article writing....and then, the writer wants the same respect accorded when the writings were actually research. [ I learned this working in the company of scientists where I've been for a long time]
Credentials in one field are not so easily transferrable to the next and the next.
If all discourse ends however every time things get testy....imagine how short lived would be the dialogue and the learning process.
In the memorable words of Rod in Jerry Mcquire;
"Jerry, sometime just when we're staring to communicate, you think we're fightin". :?
Steve
If you live by the sword you die by the sword. Reef Central made their own bed and their policies have made things worse. Even if they were well intended. The internet is a powerful force and hard to control. I think we are all learning that lesson.
Mitch
Mitch
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
Its disturbing to think that what counts the most may be the most feared to discuss and the most censored...
People who can understand lighting physics and bio-chemistry as well as so many reefs folks should find it easy to understand issues like freedom of expression and the right to assembly and open debate.
Acting like the FCC deleting Howard Stern has ruined the FCC in the eyes of many. They made him greater then he deserved!
Imagine this editorial disposition at the Scopes Monkey trial or in the Darwinian debates...or more importantly the great Lallo debates that raged on for a month!
Steve
People who can understand lighting physics and bio-chemistry as well as so many reefs folks should find it easy to understand issues like freedom of expression and the right to assembly and open debate.
Acting like the FCC deleting Howard Stern has ruined the FCC in the eyes of many. They made him greater then he deserved!
Imagine this editorial disposition at the Scopes Monkey trial or in the Darwinian debates...or more importantly the great Lallo debates that raged on for a month!
Steve
Well I almost feel sorry for Eric now. I mean it's hard to continue to criticize his article if he is no longer around to defend it. The thing is Coralmania is still over there painting a worse picture of the industry than it really is. I've talked with several people in the trade since this thread began and everyone agrees that his basic premise that the trade is growing like crazy is just not true. If fact they all agree the trade is diminishing and may be headed toward self destruction. The continued demise of the independent retailers on the front lines getting people into the hobby will impact the hobby in a negative manner. Eric sure got his licks in against retailers over the years in many different ways.
Mitch
Mitch
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
Gosh,
The reef trade may have been growing at the expense of the conventional fish trade. A simple possiblity...but one lost if the focus were on the surge of the reef trade without a point of reference and perspective concerning the regular trade.
The attrition rate among dealers in this alleged 'gold rush' and 'boomtime' has many wondering how they missed it!
Steve
The reef trade may have been growing at the expense of the conventional fish trade. A simple possiblity...but one lost if the focus were on the surge of the reef trade without a point of reference and perspective concerning the regular trade.
The attrition rate among dealers in this alleged 'gold rush' and 'boomtime' has many wondering how they missed it!
Steve
Post edited. I meant it when I said I didn't want this to become a critique of how they handled the situation. Please don't do it again. Righty
What a loss to the Board.
I hope for the sake of industry and the hobby they find another venue.
Go after to them RDO, NOW!
What a loss to the Board.
I hope for the sake of industry and the hobby they find another venue.
Go after to them RDO, NOW!
Righty":1e1gr51d said:
Righty,
I'm going to stay away from the illegal coral stuff. However I do have a comment on how the Coralmania thread was handled on reef central. I started the original criticism over here for a simple reason. Previous experience has showed me that if they don't like the message it might get squashed, even if no "rules" are broken. However our very own Mike Kirda(currently MIA) challenged me to take the debate over to Eric's place. When I saw the thread Steven Pro started I decided to accept Mike's challenge and take the fight to his place. The last thing I wanted to see was the thread killed because people got into personal attacks so he was challenged to explain his article strictly on the issues. To be honest I thought Eric did a very poor job of defending his writting. When I pointed out the bangaii cardinal numbers were wrong he seemed defiant. He seemed completely unwilling to accept the fact that he could be wrong about any of this stuff. When others jumped in to also challenge the accuracy of his data he got flustrated and quit posting. When I asked how he arrived at the conclusion that there are 1,000,000 reefkeeper with 100 animals each he just danced around it. He said something about RC has 110,000,000 members inferring that must mean there are 1,000,000 reefers with an average of 100 animals each throughout their time in the hobby. At least that was what Steven Pro thought he said. I thought he dodged it.
He did say he arrived at his 30% per year growth figure from data Dr. Barbara Best and Dr. Andy Bruckner had gathered. I then contacted Dr. Best and she mailed me the report he based the claims on. They believe the industry world wide has grown 10-30% per year since 1999. Assuming I read everything right. Dr. Best did explain that they have better data on corals and live rock than fish since the former are CITES controlled, but not fish. (except seahorses) Well Eric chose to go with the high end for some reason. While I have no way of knowing how much growth has taken place in countries like China, I do feel very comfortable in saying that all indications are that nowhere near 30% growth per year has been happening in the United States since 1999. Unless you count robbing Peter to pay Paul as industry growth. He clearly tied the 30% growth in with the 1,000,000 U.S. reefkeeper paragraph. I felt, and still do, that he was misleading the reader, either accidently or on purpose.
The article in question still stands, the only thing missing is the criticism of it. Now here is my point. I go over there and spend a lot of time pointing out problems with his article, and doing it in a manner so he has every fair chance in the world to address the concerns. And then the entire thread disappears when things aren't going his way. It then reappears in a different forum, and finally disappears again. Instead of some resaonable explanation as to what happened to that entire thread, we get the cloak and dagger treatment. A number of threads were started asking what was going on, but questions were either danced around or vaporized. Now if pointing out how Reef Central handled this particular situation is unfair I'd certainly like you to explain why.
Thanks,
Mitch
PS
This was posted by BrianD in the RC Feedback forum under Where's Dr. Ron.
"The ironic part of that comment is some have complained that we tolerated too much from certain members and didn't "censor" them quickly enough.
It shows that it all depends on whose ox is being gored. Reef Central is a more tightly moderated site than many, but that is the formula that has worked for this site. Others choose a different, but no less appropriate, path."
Which begs the question is it really working all that well?
Mitch
Mitch,
They really hate it when you take on a sponsor, you think the smoke and mirrors is bad now, just go and try the truth about a big sponsor. Big difference from .com and a .org RC has a lot of traffic and money tied up in that traffic, they protect their investment and income sources.
Things in this forum tend to get out of hand sometimes, but at least things are not censored or vaporized.
I edited it out.
They really hate it when you take on a sponsor, you think the smoke and mirrors is bad now, just go and try the truth about a big sponsor. Big difference from .com and a .org RC has a lot of traffic and money tied up in that traffic, they protect their investment and income sources.
Things in this forum tend to get out of hand sometimes, but at least things are not censored or vaporized.
I edited it out.
dizzy":22wqobgx said:
I have no problem with any of that.
Inter-board courtesy. It is really awful for RDO staff when we see RDO being hacked on on other boards. Because it bothers us, we like to try to stop the same thing from happening here. Granted it can be a fine line, which is why I am not editing your post.
Over there? That is their business is it not?
Discussing it over here does nothing to help the situation over there, and I am not going to speculate on their policies because I do not have the relevant information to feel good about critiquing their actions.Discussion of the article is fine though.
spawner":3u400nhc said:
I think this is too far. Simply, their business practices and policies are none of our business and we simply don't have all the information to be able to comment accurately. Speculation about why other boards do what they do only fuels fires that no one really needs. I leave it up as an example of what I would like not to happen on RDO at the present time.
Which is a long standing debate behind the scenes. I know that since we rarely delete anything, that some people who may be interested in posting to the industry forum become uninterested when they look at past discussions.
Mitch,
Since Eric doesn't seem to want to discuss the paper with you. The proper way to handle your complaint about the paper is to address it in an opipion paper addressing your concerns about Eric's paper. This is very common in the ecological journals, your papers is BS and here is a list why. That normally follows a reply by the orginal article stating why their paper is not BS and why the reviewer is full of it.
I would suggest you write something up and submit it to RK. Normally you would email it to the author of the paper you are addressing prior to submission for comments.
Here is the instructions from TREE
Opinion articles present a personal viewpoint of a field or research-related subject. They can cover timely controversial topics or debates, provide a new interpretation of an old problem or current issue, or speculate in depth on the implications of some recently published research or data. Opinion articles aim to stimulate debate rather than provide a comprehensive review of a topic.
Polyploidization, hybridization and geographical parthenogenesis
Magnus Lundmark
Response to Lundmark: Polyploidization, hybridization and geographical parthenogenesis Michael Kearney
Since Eric doesn't seem to want to discuss the paper with you. The proper way to handle your complaint about the paper is to address it in an opipion paper addressing your concerns about Eric's paper. This is very common in the ecological journals, your papers is BS and here is a list why. That normally follows a reply by the orginal article stating why their paper is not BS and why the reviewer is full of it.
I would suggest you write something up and submit it to RK. Normally you would email it to the author of the paper you are addressing prior to submission for comments.
Here is the instructions from TREE
Opinion articles present a personal viewpoint of a field or research-related subject. They can cover timely controversial topics or debates, provide a new interpretation of an old problem or current issue, or speculate in depth on the implications of some recently published research or data. Opinion articles aim to stimulate debate rather than provide a comprehensive review of a topic.
Polyploidization, hybridization and geographical parthenogenesis
Magnus Lundmark
Response to Lundmark: Polyploidization, hybridization and geographical parthenogenesis Michael Kearney
Righty":r41dbvod said:
That's an incredibly weak argument Righty, and I respect your opinions. You are unquestionably a very sharp guy.
I think overall this is a very fair and largely self policing forum. No one is here given a free hand to abuse the weak or the intellectually challenged. If they can't take up for themselves one of the other members will jump in to assist. If you don't truly have the courage of your convictions then perhaps this is not the best place to post. I'll give you that much. Andy,
I might just do that. I love a good fight when I think I'm on the right side. And when it comes down to basic 1st Amendment rights and the need to protect them, count me in. I need some time to gather my facts. In the mean time this is the best we have.
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
Right Mitch,
Righty mentioned that...
Some people who may be interested in posting to the industry forum become uninterested when they look at past discussions.
...and some people want heavy editing of others to insure that their positions are safe.
Some people want a uniformity of thought and opinion and hate it that it cannot be contained.
and some people use the flakiest 5% of what goes on here in this 'free' forum' and dishonestly purport it to be the norm.
This pseudo-intellectual snobbery has been used to put down that which they cannot comtrol, understand or respond to.
The heaviest issues in the evolution of the trade are discussed and illuminated here far, far more then on other forums.
This place is has evolved into something like a congressional record for achives pertaining to sustainability questions, the live grouper trade, MAC, MAMTI, TNC, the Case Bill, the CDT, IMA, Haribon, the Lallo sampling etc. etc
Where else can you get such non light weight...non manipulated give and take; and thereby sharpen your own wits?
Still, its nice to know that the detractors of RDO care about something. I have never seen so much passion elictited from them until the questions got petty-personal and sponsor oriented.
I always thought that the 'outside ourselve's issues ie. the real issues discussed here were far far more important.
Post edited for reasons stated earlier in this thread - Righty
Good job Righty and Len!
Steve
Steve
Righty mentioned that...
Some people who may be interested in posting to the industry forum become uninterested when they look at past discussions.
...and some people want heavy editing of others to insure that their positions are safe.
Some people want a uniformity of thought and opinion and hate it that it cannot be contained.
and some people use the flakiest 5% of what goes on here in this 'free' forum' and dishonestly purport it to be the norm.
This pseudo-intellectual snobbery has been used to put down that which they cannot comtrol, understand or respond to.
The heaviest issues in the evolution of the trade are discussed and illuminated here far, far more then on other forums.
This place is has evolved into something like a congressional record for achives pertaining to sustainability questions, the live grouper trade, MAC, MAMTI, TNC, the Case Bill, the CDT, IMA, Haribon, the Lallo sampling etc. etc
Where else can you get such non light weight...non manipulated give and take; and thereby sharpen your own wits?
Still, its nice to know that the detractors of RDO care about something. I have never seen so much passion elictited from them until the questions got petty-personal and sponsor oriented.
I always thought that the 'outside ourselve's issues ie. the real issues discussed here were far far more important.
Post edited for reasons stated earlier in this thread - Righty
Good job Righty and Len!
Steve
Steve
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:
