Protein Skimmer

[pledosophy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7741038#post7741038 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley
only 85% of cases had a skimmer

Again where do you get this number? Is it from the same place you got 95% of seahorse keepers protein skimmers?

If your going to refernce the data I post, please pay more attention and be accurate.

 

[pledosophy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7741038#post7741038 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley


I just polled everyone I know who owns seahorses in my local club. We have 95% skimmer use. That provides a correlation that skimmers actually reduce occurance of GBD.

If your not making it up post a link. We've been waiting quite awhile now.

 

[pledosophy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7743398#post7743398 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley


pledosophy, you're coming to conclusions that the data you have doesnt support.

I disagree. Please post some links to your data so we can all see what it supports.

 

[pledosophy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7749509#post7749509 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by FishGrrl

Kevin, I know you mean well, but its these mistakes in the process and others like it that make it so difficult to take seriously. The methods are flawed because the people involved don't seem to understand the process involved with coming up with a solid, scientifically based theory.

Go to the post regarding your "survey" read that them come back and read this again.

 

[pledosophy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7749509#post7749509 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by FishGrrl
This isn't someone being pedantic about semantics, but a clearly defined process that has worked for hundreds of years to weed out invalid data.

You don't even know what the word theory means. Lookup the word theory, pedantic, and semantics, then come back and tell me this statement is true.

 

[pledosophy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7755547#post7755547 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by FishGrrl
Therefore saltwater causes gbd.

This kind of ridiculous accusation is just insulting. C'mon now, how much of it did you think would fly.

 

[TamiW]

This thread has become too emotional and Kevin, you are now taking things out of context (see your accusation of Rich's HYPOTHETICAL, not ACTUAL numbers). I am sorry this thread devolved the way it has and I doubt any amount of posting rational posting is going to salvage it and convince any side one way or another. I, at least, am done.

 

[pledosophy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7778757#post7778757 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley


"Do you have any documented cases of any of the forms of GBD appearing in the wild? I have never heard or read any report of a seahorse with GBD in the ocean. "

How is that relevant? That has absolutely nothing to do with it. My analogy still stands. 100% of Seahorses with GBD have been exposed to salt water. It must cause it.
Just like saying that 85% of GBD cases occur in tanks with skimmers without any of the needed relevant info.


When did this become about me Pledosophy? Everytime anyone questions the validity of YOUR data, you start making personal attacks.

"DONT USE SALT. IN 100% of GBD CASES, THE SEAHORSES WERE EXPOSED TO SALT"

It is relevant because the lack of occurance in the wild shows that it is an environmental situation that is unquie to aquariums. There has been no reported cases of GBD occuring naturalyin the ocean (Mitchell 2004).

The salt water arguement just shows how far you have come along to make more accusations and continue an arguement when you clearly do not understand what is involved. Is this the brighest idea you can come up with now that the restof your fantasies have been disproven.

You were the one to start making personal attacks. There is a record of your posts and you comments in this thread. Blaming me for you attempt to martyr yourself is sad. I can't imagine why so many people hae problems with you in so many threads. It must be all of them.

Yes I am attacking you now based on the merits of the statements you have made, your inability to support them, and fabricated pointed attacks you have directed at groups of people. You choose to patronize and fabricate numbers for the sake of arguement, then can not withstand the result without crying foul.

 

[pledosophy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7778757#post7778757 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley


Your spewing out "OMG, SKIMMERS ARE BAD" has influenced the population on that site and created an environment in which skimmers are feared. T

Please provide a link to such statements. You are making up more lies about me. This needs to stop.

 

[pledosophy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7823192#post7823192 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by FishGrrl
Hi Kevin.

Glad you could (re) join us after I was attempting to take suggestions for how to make the poll more accurate, rather than before.

I posted what I felt was relevant 11 days before you ever mentioned the survey. It was there in the thread you chose not to include it.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7701554#post7701554 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by pledosophy


The survey was not designed to be pointed towards skimmers. It runs a wide variety of question including tank maintnence, breeding practices, tank parameters, making of salt water, types of water, number of seahorses, disease history, nutrition and feeding habits, treatments of GBD, frequency of occurance, tank specifications including size, height, width, type of substrate, amount of substrate, tankmates, coral mates, types of macro algaes, presence of nuisance algaes or bacteria's, lighting types, lighting intensity, light cycles, presence of external refugiums, light cycle for fuge if present, types of filters used including make, UV presence, types of aeratiuon, amount of flow, and surface agitation.

The study did not look into skimmers causing GBD, it looked into the tanks were GBD was present, factored multiple things,

 

[pledosophy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7823192#post7823192 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by FishGrrl


I also didn't know I was blasting your methods, per say. I thought you said that the GBD study was set up by seahorse.org, not yourself.

You have stated several times that my collection of data from various sources was meaningless because it did not fit your criteria for research. You even posted a link defining your accepted method of scientific research. You continued to mock by giving ridiculous analogies.

The GBD survey is not my own, I was not involved in setting it up, nor am I involved with maintaining it. I have never stated otherwise. The only survey that I have stated as my own was the one asking people if they used protein skimmers, and the research on mixing syngnathid species.

 

[pledosophy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7823192#post7823192 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by FishGrrl



Or is it that I do not think any survey, but especially a flawed one should be given that much credence without experimental data to back it up. Are you suggesting there is actual replicated experiemental data that I'm missing regarding the sh.org gbd survey?

Bah, I'm too tired to post anymore. Its probably not worth it anyway since I smell a sock puppet.

Then why run your own? Especially knowing a more indepth survey is currently being ran. If you wanted to help gather anwsers why not try to contribute to the base of data that is already being established that is more conclusive? I'm not against independent research, but the new poll will have no function into finding anwsers IMO.

You might have missed the research paper, not sure.

Sock Puppet? Are you now saying Mal and I are the same person? We are not. A mod can confirm this for you if they choose.

 

[pledosophy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7823196#post7823196 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by FishGrrl
This is exactly my point. There are too many other factors to say OMG PROTEIN SKIMMER!

On that note, the whole idea that a seahorse can be "predisposed" to gas bubble disease? I keep reading that and all I see are excuses for variances in data that can't be explained away. So instead there is this imaginary "predisposed" condition that accounts for data that would otherwise make the presented hypothesis false. Is it possible? Sure, is there any evidence other than wild guess work? I don't think so. When there is variances in data like that one should be looking in flaws with their methodology, not looking for excuses to continue to support that data.

Predisposition to various ailments is a widely accepted theory in relation to several species and encompasses several different dispositions. It has been written about and discussed in several scientific journals. I do not see why you are so eager to dispute it.

The idea of seahorses being predisposed to GBD comes from many renowned syngnathid specialists and PHD marine biologists including Jeff Mitchell from Shedd's (you mentioned him earlier so you're probably familiar), and Pete Giwonja. There are others but you seem eager to dismiss, and this thread is getting ugly so I'd rather leave there names out of it.

Why do you discredit others research while presenting none of your own?

 

[pledosophy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7823228#post7823228 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by FishGrrl
This thread has become too emotional and Kevin, you are now taking things out of context (see your accusation of Rich's HYPOTHETICAL, not ACTUAL numbers). I am sorry this thread devolved the way it has and I doubt any amount of posting rational posting is going to salvage it and convince any side one way or another. I, at least, am done.

Nope those are Rich's real numbers he posted in relation to his private survey. Here is the entire post.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7741038#post7741038 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley
2. GBD occurs more frequently in systems with skimmers.

You can't assume that. What you can assume is this
"More cases of GBD are present in tanks with skimmers"

Those two statements have completely different meanings.
And theres a corrolary to that: More systems have skimmers than dont. Which makes piece 2 completely useless. Its called a red herring.


Its akin to saying that

1) Athletes foot occurs whether or not people own bathing suits
2) Athlestes foot occurs more frequently with people who own bathing suits


Therfore, bathing suits must cause athletes foot.


We're missing the population. Thats the problem, and without it, the data doesnt say anything. This is not about science, its about probability and statistics. Its about what proves what.

Your survey says what it says: 85% of GBD cases reported in this survey had skimmers. Thats all it says. No conclusions can be made from it. The data is not complete.

I just polled everyone I know who owns seahorses in my local club. We have 95% skimmer use. That provides a correlation that skimmers actually reduce occurance of GBD.

95% SKimmer use, only 85% of cases had a skimmer, thats a pretty serious correlation. 5% of the tanks are accounting for 15% of the cases. That makes tanks without skimmers almost four times as likely to have GBD.

It was not taken out of context. Those are the numbers he posted. Those are the numbers I am questioning. Those are the numbers he has failed to back up.

Furthermore all of the quotes I have posted came out of this thread. They are all found here. If someone wishes to go back and read them they have the ability to do so. There is a link in the quote box to the post where the quote came from. Easy enough for someone to read through.

Kevin, you are now taking things out of context (see your accusation of Rich's HYPOTHETICAL, not ACTUAL numbers)

Another statement of error trying to discredit. Why?

I'm sorry this has gotten so out of control, but it seems as if I am continually being attacked, mocked, misquoted, and accused of things I have not done or said. I could no longer continue to let all of this just go.

I tried to take a break, leave the site for a week, see if things changed, but while I was gone just more attacks.

I am patient but I have a threshold.

 

[mal40]

:bum:

I am having a laugh right now, because the advert above this thread is for protein skimmers!


So you think I need a sump, and place my skimmer in there? But I dont have GBD, so I can leave things as they are, and if it develops, then move the skimmer?

By the way, I looked at your survey. It is far to long. It would take hours to fill it in.

This survey will take approximately 15 minutes to complete

is a lie! This survey will take 15 minutes to load into your browser! I also dont see any place where your survey asks about skimmers? Where is the link between GBD and skimmers in the survey?

Where is the data you have collected? I also can not see any results in your forum.

 

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7823272#post7823272 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by pledosophy
Then why run your own? Especially knowing a more indepth survey is currently being ran. If you wanted to help gather anwsers why not try to contribute to the base of data that is already being established that is more conclusive? I'm not against independent research, but the new poll will have no function into finding anwsers IMO.

You might have missed the research paper, not sure.

Sock Puppet? Are you now saying Mal and I are the same person? We are not. A mod can confirm this for you if they choose.

BECAUSE YOUR INDEPTH SURVEY IS MORTALLY FLAWED.

It does not take into affect population dynamics.

The new ones do.

 

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7823308#post7823308 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by pledosophy
Nope those are Rich's real numbers he posted in relation to his private survey. Here is the entire post.



It was not taken out of context. Those are the numbers he posted. Those are the numbers I am questioning. Those are the numbers he has failed to back up.

Furthermore all of the quotes I have posted came out of this thread. They are all found here. If someone wishes to go back and read them they have the ability to do so. There is a link in the quote box to the post where the quote came from. Easy enough for someone to read through.



Another statement of error trying to discredit. Why?

I'm sorry this has gotten so out of control, but it seems as if I am continually being attacked, mocked, misquoted, and accused of things I have not done or said. I could no longer continue to let all of this just go.

I tried to take a break, leave the site for a week, see if things changed, but while I was gone just more attacks.

I am patient but I have a threshold.

\


Again pledosophy, you fail to get the point.

My numbers are just as valid as yours. Both contain partial data, and are completely useless, and misleading without having the rest of the data.

BOTH PIECES OF DATA ARE USELESS. The fact that I'm not backing mine up doesnt make yours any less useless. You are making an assumption based on data that is too incomplete to back up that assumption.



As to the saltwater causes GBD, there is more supporting evidence to that than your skimmer causing GBD thing. Again, That argument is missing the piece that includes population distribution. Without population distribution, the data is WORSE THAN USELESS.

 

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7823166#post7823166 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by pledosophy
This is a false statement.

Please provide a link.

http://www.seahorse.org/library/articles/DIY/diyRefugium.shtml

 

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7823167#post7823167 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by pledosophy
Good Point,

Please provide a link to the spelling mistakes in the published seahorse.org articles.

Throughout this thread you hae still not learned to spell protein, but are claiming to be an expert. Why?

Way too lazy to look for spelling mistakes, but I'm sure you'll find some in the same article above.

 

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7823169#post7823169 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by pledosophy
"Originally posted by RichConley
You guys seem to think that CO2 levels are raised by a skimmer. I have a hard time believing that this is true."

Based on what?

Please provide a link that backs your statements.

Any increase in surface/air area will bring the concentration of CO2 in the water closer to that of the air. If your house has a high CO2 content, it'll bring it up, if it has a low concentration, it'll bring it down.

Please provide a link disproving this scientifically accepted concept.