"Newbie Bill" wrote in message
...
Hi All - There is apparently some sub dynamic of this group that I am
totally unaware of.

Yeah, we're pretty close knit. rec.ponds is one of the few usenet groups
that is not plaqued with BS. Although, we have our moments.

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.

Where's the fun in that.

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.

Which was my point. Sometimes 1+1=2 when you follow the rules. But we all
break them and usually end up getting 2, but not necissarily by adding 1 and
1.

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.
snip

Ponding is not an exact science, as evidenced by the fact that there are no
two ponds alike. No two sets of conditions. On rec.ponds, for the most part,
we offer anecdotal solutions to ponders problems. We are typically careful
not hand down knowledge as gospel, as we know that what works for 1 may not
work for another.

BV.