Hi All - There is apparently some sub dynamic of this group that I am
totally unaware of. If someone would care to email me privately I would
appreciate it. I wrote a fairly lengthy (surprise, surprise) 'observation'
and have decided to delete it, because I really, really dont want to offend
anyone or act like I'm right you're wrong. So I will just make 2 quick
comments about this thread. 1) I do believe there is quite an art to
balancing the scientific generalities and facts into your specific pond
parameters. 2) I have rarely seen an instance where a desired result is as
simple as 1+1=2. It is most usually 4 or 5 variables, hoping you weighted
them correctly, hoping you included the correct variables and the closer to
2 the better, but they rarely add up to exactly 2.
Perhaps I should not be commenting at all but I just saw something in
this thread that I dont get. Maybe its something as simple as you vets not
being allowed to say "You pond newbies are just too stupid at first so we
are going to start you off really slowly". I resemble that remark.
Have Fun!
Bill Brister - Austin, Texas
"Benign Vanilla" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
I would say that ponding is mostly science.
snip
I tend to agree. 1+1 often = 2 when it comes to ponding.

art is when people knowingly bend or break the rules and get away with
it.
snip

Unfortunately this is as true as 1+1=2, especially for the porgs that I
have
read here on rec.ponds. I think we ALL break the rules at some point, and
for the most part, many of us have gotten away with it.

BV.