vitz
New member
that was the 1st link i was going to provide santamonica in an effort to show him part of what i'm talking about
I don't do water changes
- Thread starter houstonhobby
- Start date
that was the 1st link i was going to provide santamonica in an effort to show him part of what i'm talking about
Addey's turf scrubber tanks were notorious for yellow water and the need for constant replacement of corals due to the substances released by the turf algae. While algae is certainly good at removing nutrients, it's not a magic bullet end all and be all filtration method. There are things to consider, not just the good of nutrient removal
vitz
New member
Addey's turf scrubber tanks were notorious for yellow water and the need for constant replacement of corals due to the substances released by the turf algae. While algae is certainly good at removing nutrients, it's not a magic bullet end all and be all filtration method. There are things to consider, not just the good of nutrient removal
i've read both adey and jaubert, extensivley, decades ago (i'm fairly certain you have too, heh-all these young whippersnappers don't know a thing. can you say 'plenum'?
).it's just so darn annoying when i see people trying to re-invent a wheel that so many have already tried to re-invent, and failed, simply because they're ignorant of that particular wheel's history. even more annoying when their ignorance is willfully self imposed. and even more annoying when they sucker other's just as ignorant on the subject into thinking they have something, when there's nothing to be had.
Had a plenum once upon at time. Even met Addey way back in the undergrad days, also had friends that interned with him at the Smithsonian...learned a few things about water quality issues with that set up from those friends
Hmm, I'm starting to feel an old timer...
Hmm, I'm starting to feel an old timer...
power boat jim
Well-known member
You must be one of those late starters
Hoping for a free get out of a banning card?
Better be
power boat jim
Well-known member
Hoping for a free get out of a banning card?
It would make a great Christmas gift.
Phixer
New member
LOL, I don't want to muck up this thread as I'm sure Bill has a good handle on it, but I can't resist commenting on this^.
The whole War of the Worlds panic story is almost entirely a myth.
Sorry but thats false. The overwhelming majority of people at the time thought it was really happening. They were highly irate when the hoax was revealed.
vitz
New member
"But historians also claim that newspaper accounts over the following week greatly exaggerated the hysteria. There are estimates that about 20 percent of those listening believed it was real. That translates to less than a million people"
a quick google search places the estimate from many/most sources at being at most about what's mentioned in that n.g. article, btw, and many state the press greatly exaggerated the % of the populace who believed it.
it's those pesky objective facts rearing their ugly heads again
a quick google search places the estimate from many/most sources at being at most about what's mentioned in that n.g. article, btw, and many state the press greatly exaggerated the % of the populace who believed it.
it's those pesky objective facts rearing their ugly heads again
vitz
New member
from wiki:
"Later studies suggested the panic was less widespread than newspapers had indicated at the time. During this period, many newspaper publishers were concerned that radio, a new medium, would render them obsolete. In that time of yellow journalism, print journalists took the opportunity to suggest that radio was dangerous by embellishing the story of the panic that ensued.[14]
Hand cites studies by unnamed historians who "calculate[d] that some 6 million heard the CBS broadcast; 1.7 million believed it to be true, and 1.2 million were 'genuinely frightened'". NBC's audience, by contrast, was an estimated 30 million.[11]
Robert E. Bartholomew grants that hundreds of thousands were frightened but calls evidence of people taking action based on their fear "scant" and "anecdotal".[15] Indeed, contemporary news articles indicate that police were swamped with hundreds of calls in numerous locations, but stories of people doing anything more than calling authorities mostly involve only small groups. Such stories were often reported by people who were panicking themselves.[12]"
i can go on...
"Later studies suggested the panic was less widespread than newspapers had indicated at the time. During this period, many newspaper publishers were concerned that radio, a new medium, would render them obsolete. In that time of yellow journalism, print journalists took the opportunity to suggest that radio was dangerous by embellishing the story of the panic that ensued.[14]
Hand cites studies by unnamed historians who "calculate[d] that some 6 million heard the CBS broadcast; 1.7 million believed it to be true, and 1.2 million were 'genuinely frightened'". NBC's audience, by contrast, was an estimated 30 million.[11]
Robert E. Bartholomew grants that hundreds of thousands were frightened but calls evidence of people taking action based on their fear "scant" and "anecdotal".[15] Indeed, contemporary news articles indicate that police were swamped with hundreds of calls in numerous locations, but stories of people doing anything more than calling authorities mostly involve only small groups. Such stories were often reported by people who were panicking themselves.[12]"
i can go on...
from wiki:
"Later studies suggested the panic was less widespread than newspapers had indicated at the time. During this period, many newspaper publishers were concerned that radio, a new medium, would render them obsolete. In that time of yellow journalism, print journalists took the opportunity to suggest that radio was dangerous by embellishing the story of the panic that ensued.[14]
Hand cites studies by unnamed historians who "calculate[d] that some 6 million heard the CBS broadcast; 1.7 million believed it to be true, and 1.2 million were 'genuinely frightened'". NBC's audience, by contrast, was an estimated 30 million.[11]
Robert E. Bartholomew grants that hundreds of thousands were frightened but calls evidence of people taking action based on their fear "scant" and "anecdotal".[15] Indeed, contemporary news articles indicate that police were swamped with hundreds of calls in numerous locations, but stories of people doing anything more than calling authorities mostly involve only small groups. Such stories were often reported by people who were panicking themselves.[12]"
i can go on...
Please dont take this the wrong way as this is only my 2nd post. But from an outsiders perspective and looking over your posts, it seems like you like do not respect differences of opinion or maybe you just know everything.
Phixer
New member
http://thetruthseekersguide.blogspot.com/2013/10/75-years-on-war-of-worlds-psyop-part-2.html
I suppose it depends upon the area as initial newspaper reports exaggerated the number. Even so if it was only a million, thats still a lot of people who believed it to be true.
I suppose it depends upon the area as initial newspaper reports exaggerated the number. Even so if it was only a million, thats still a lot of people who believed it to be true.
vitz
New member
i simply have no tolerance for opinions presented as facts or dogma. especially in this particular hobby.
"Phixer is right, most people actually believed this was happening. My Grandparents lived thru this."
THAT is an opinion presented as fact. happens to NOT be a fact. i'm not judging YOU-just your method of making a completely unfounded assertion-something that tends to run rampant on bulletin boards.
"Phixer is right, most people actually believed this was happening. My Grandparents lived thru this."
THAT is an opinion presented as fact. happens to NOT be a fact. i'm not judging YOU-just your method of making a completely unfounded assertion-something that tends to run rampant on bulletin boards.
vitz
New member
speaking of which, it would be nice if santamonica 'manned up' and adressed HIS assertions intelligently, with actual data to support his claims.
until he does that, he's selling snake oil (but many of us already know this ).
the same goes for the un-necessarily endless debate on water changes- take two systems setup as identically as possible, down to the inhabitants.
leave one alone as far as water changes go-add supplements, do top offs, chemical sinking of organics via carbon, gfo, etc etc. even setup an algae scrubber, heh.
on the other, do everything identicall BUT also perform regular large water changes.
the system w/ the wc's will be overall, healthier, more vibrant and productive.
every. single. time.
until he does that, he's selling snake oil (but many of us already know this
).the same goes for the un-necessarily endless debate on water changes- take two systems setup as identically as possible, down to the inhabitants.
leave one alone as far as water changes go-add supplements, do top offs, chemical sinking of organics via carbon, gfo, etc etc. even setup an algae scrubber, heh.
on the other, do everything identicall BUT also perform regular large water changes.
the system w/ the wc's will be overall, healthier, more vibrant and productive.
every. single. time.
:lol: Phixer, you should probably not post from the same computer when you're trying to pretend to be new.
Doh! :lol:
