"~ janj" wrote in message
...
No. Because you just missed the big picture. All of the above was found
out by further RESEARCH! Sheesh.

Jan - you missed my point entirely. What will *further research* learn
about fish food? Sheeeeeesh! I have little faith in research and for
good
reasons. There are hundreds of cases like the ones I mentioned.

Totally illogical.

So it's illogical that past research was so poor they gave unsuspecting
women HRT until NEW research proved it was causing so many more cases of
breast cancer they stopped the new research? In your mind it would be
logical to keep prescribing the hormones because of past research? Now
that's illogical to me. So tell us Jan - what magic do you use to tell
which research came to the correct answers? How can we KNOW which research
isn't going to be another WHOOPSIE.... "We made a mistake! Sorry we killed
you with breast cancer (or whatever) with our past research."

I read this as saying, since a few research projects
have been wrong, all research is wrong.

No Jan, stop reading your own agenda into what I'm saying. We're talking
about a lot of research that came to the wrong conclusions over a period of
many years. You seem to think whatever a researcher posts is the TRUTH and
CORRECT! If that were the case there wouldn't been so many drugs pulled off
the market that "research" showed to be safe. And that's just one example.

*Perhaps even the research that
says the first research is wrong!* Sure hope you're not taking any meds
for
anything that ails you, since those meds were created via research.

So YOU believe we should keep the poor research and all the wrong and
sometimes deadly results hidden? Why Jan? What's the point in that?

You know what. I'm not going to discuss something that has nothing to do
with fish food.

Oh yes it does Jan. You claimed RESEARCH proved the koi food...... on and
on...... you used the word research.

My control group, fat and sassy (last years fry) have already all be sold
last spring. They were raised on Catfish and Trout chow with treats of
kitten and puppy chow.

Doesn't work that way Carol. Sorry. You'll never get into a science
journal
based on that.

Sorry Jan, the RESEARCHERS who claimed animal fats were deadly and to switch
to (deadly) trans-fats got into the science Journals didn't he Jan? Oh yes,
they did. How many people died of heart disease because of that faulty
research? Just because RESEARCH makes it into a Journal doesn't mean it's
gospel as you seem to think. Are you still eating those deadly trans-fats
Jan or are you accepting the *NEW RESEARCH* that shows how deadly trans-fats
are? Whose conflicting research are you going by now? And what makes you
think some other RESEARCHER wont come up next week and say, "WHOOPSIE we
were wrong about that trout chow." Whose research will you go by then?
Researcher one or researcher two?

At the very least one would have to open some of the fish up
and see are them just as fat (yea, I bet they are) and sassy on the inside
as the out side.

Sorry again Jan. Whenever one of my koi dies, and occasionally one does,
there is no fatty liver problem. How do you think I know they had
*internal* contagious ulcers in the later 90s? Remember my old website? I
worked in an animal hospital for years in NY. Autopsy is nothing new to me.
Their parents are 7 and over and all are thriving. And yes Jan, here in TN
our winters are cold so the young fish must have enough FLESH/FAT to carry
them through the winter.

Same conditions (same tanks and same filters with the same pumps) and same
parent fish Jan. Fresh food right from the Ichabon factory from an
Aquarium
store in Nashville. He gets in a fresh load every spring.

But all we have is your say so Carol. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to jump
on the band wagon of one person saying this worked for them when all the
research says other wise,

Research said HRT was good for women too Jan. New research shows that was
quite wrong. No one says you should jump on any bandwagon. Just stop
trying to *CENSOR* what's posted here because you believe what some
researcher wrote. That is censorship. You want to silence those who have
had complete success with other feeds.

and a lot of people with more money in this hobby
then I'll ever spend in a lifetime follow the research. You can try to
convince the masses, but you're not going to convince me. So have the last
word, as I know you will.

Jan, STOP reading your own agenda into this. No one is trying to convince
you of anything. I couldn't care less what you feed your fish or if you
have your fish for dinner tonight. All I'm saying is to STOP trying to
censor those of us who have great success with cheaper non specific
overpriced koi foods - that means to stop using some research papers you
read as gospel to silence others. As deadly as trans-fats and HRT is I
wouldn't try to stop you from using them either if you want to believe the
"researchers."

No Jan. I will *not* take offense if a food your fish thrived on left me
with several hundred undersized fry. It just proves to me one more time
how
unreliable (and sometimes deadly) *research* can be and often is. What I
will take offense at is being called a drunk, a slut and an idiot (and
other
insinuations) because what worked for you or Snooze or Joe Blow didn't
work
for me and Jane Doe etc.

Well I FOR ONE HAVE NEVER EVER CALLED YOU THOSE NAMES OR ANY NAMES!

I didn't say YOU specifically did. What you did do was expect me to blindly
take the research you're going by as being as correct and right as though no
research errors occur, or occur rarely and that is not the case.

If
you've taken my disagreements/rebuttals as inferring to that, than that is
your problem, and shame on you for even putting MY name in with the likes
of those who do such. ~ jan

I wouldn't say your name with the same breath I would his.... no worry
there. ;-)
--
ZB....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*







--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"~ janj" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:17:53 -0600, Tristan
wrote:

Arbitrarily buying a bag of "___________" and feeding it to anyhtng is
sure a scientific study for sure. No control no documentation to base
so called findings on, and its all speculation. More to saying the
fish look good and got fat and grew fast...certainly more to it than
that........Your methods of running a test is not even close to being
substantial in any findings you think you have discovered......You
just saved somne moeny is all you did and the fish more than likely
gained nothing but a full belly of junk food.


Now this is a good example moderators. Would we allow this post?

That's hard to say since Roy will disagree with anything I post here. There
are plenty of pictures of my fish on my website. Do they look like sick
balloons? If they were so bad off on such poor food why do they look so
healthy and lay eggs well into summer? Take another look at them on my
site. :-) I get no returns and no complaints form those who have bought
fish from me these past 5 years. :-)))

It could be consider inflammatory, yet it doesn't call anyone any nasty
names. I'd have to pass it, but than would *I*, as a moderator, be
considered bias because the above poster just happens to agree with
me? ~ jan

As I recall he once agreed with me that the expensive feeds were not
necessary, but I don't think I have it archived. Ok,... then what would you
do with my message pointing out how healthy my fish were on the cheaper
foods? How overrun with fry we are most of the time? Or how flawed so much
of the research is these days?
--
ZB....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*








--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 17:32:24 -0600, Zëbulon
wrote:


snip a bunch of off topic crap.

Take this womens hormone pjst crap to the appropriate group CArol.
And you wonder why they are gong for a moderated forum. See Jan made
her views onthis subject, never said ti would not go through as a post
yet y ou still fly off the handle in dissagreement just because its
your naormal way if yu do not get your won way and get to hear what yu
want to hear. If it makes y ufeel any better, I propose we all contact
Jan and talak her into changing her view or at least agree with you
while she crosses hger fingers or legs if it will make you feel
better.




DUMB looking carp ~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*



-------
I forgot more about ponds and koi than I'll ever know!

Ah so I did, but I also keep my koin na natural mud pond which is full
of natural stuff koi are meant to eat as well not kept in a liner or
preform pond, so ther eis a difference I do belive and I think the
others here will agree with me. Once again yur selective in what ahd
how yu post replies so that it looks tobe just to your advantage.
I feed catfish food, no trout as its not available here, but a 50
pound bag will last me a year or more as i use it only to throw a
small a maount out to entice the fish to come u p so I can have a look
see as to how they are all doing. Its called responsive feeding., Its
not meant to be nutritional in any way. It was a method recomeded to
me by the fisheries and biology department of The U of Florida. Do
you know of a better way? The entire object is get em up to look at,
not feed em enough to make em dependant or to give em any real
nourishment. Cheerios and other cereals was also on that list of
suggested responsive food stuff. Go find some other response that one
failed miserably Carol.






On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 17:39:38 -0600, Zëbulon
wrote:


"~ janj" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:17:53 -0600, Tristan
wrote:

Arbitrarily buying a bag of "___________" and feeding it to anyhtng is
sure a scientific study for sure. No control no documentation to base
so called findings on, and its all speculation. More to saying the
fish look good and got fat and grew fast...certainly more to it than
that........Your methods of running a test is not even close to being
substantial in any findings you think you have discovered......You
just saved somne moeny is all you did and the fish more than likely
gained nothing but a full belly of junk food.


Now this is a good example moderators. Would we allow this post?

That's hard to say since Roy will disagree with anything I post here. There
are plenty of pictures of my fish on my website. Do they look like sick
balloons? If they were so bad off on such poor food why do they look so
healthy and lay eggs well into summer? Take another look at them on my
site. :-) I get no returns and no complaints form those who have bought
fish from me these past 5 years. :-)))

It could be consider inflammatory, yet it doesn't call anyone any nasty
names. I'd have to pass it, but than would *I*, as a moderator, be
considered bias because the above poster just happens to agree with
me? ~ jan

As I recall he once agreed with me that the expensive feeds were not
necessary, but I don't think I have it archived. Ok,... then what would you
do with my message pointing out how healthy my fish were on the cheaper
foods? How overrun with fry we are most of the time? Or how flawed so much
of the research is these days?
--
ZB....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*



-------
I forgot more about ponds and koi than I'll ever know!

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 17:55:35 -0600, Zëbulon
wrote:

Well FLESHED is just a more politically correct term for being obese!



-------
I forgot more about ponds and koi than I'll ever know!

"Gill Passman" wrote in message
...
~ janj wrote:

It could be consider inflammatory, yet it doesn't call anyone any nasty
names. I'd have to pass it, but than would *I*, as a moderator, be
considered bias because the above poster just happens to agree with me?
~ jan

IMO you should post it if you become a moderator....part of an ongoing
discussion with valid points - I don't actually see this as inflammatory -
just disagreeing with the comments being made....and there are no insults
contained within - just a difference of opinion.....Sameways if I posted
this on the same topic I would expect it to get posted (and I don't need
to own a pond to do so)

And would she or you post my message also even though it points out how
flawed some research is and how deadly it proved for some people? And how
well my fish did on the cheaper foods? There was nothing inflammatory in
what I posted either.

It easy to argue that a certain type of food produces large and fat
fish...

Fat was used as an expression. Well FLESHED is a better word. Young fish
must carry reserves to make it through the winter in zone 6. These fish are
not only undersized but too thin with little to no reserves. Where was the
research on these expensive foods done? What zone? How many cold months
were they forced to endure without food? Did they have access as my pond
fish do to algae, insects and whatever else falls in? Were they in sterile
ponds with nothing but the expensive and cheap chows being fed? I can't
seem to find that answer so easily.

but then again you can look at a human fed on junk food all of
their life - large and fat - healthy I very much doubt it....but then
again it will depend on the quality of the "inappropiate food" being
fed....if it is designed to produce well nourished puppies and kitties
then maybe it will not cause fish to become obese but potentially is
missing essential nutrients for the species of creature you are feeding
and so therefore not suitable - the nutritional requirements of all are
different but generally we tend to make this decision based on species

Well if anything is MISSING from these feeds they're sure supplying enough
of these *missing elements* to produce healthy fry that made it through our
zone 6 winters in great shape. And it made the parent fish healthy enough
to lay healthy eggs well into summer. :-))) If these are unhealthy fish
I'd like to see healthy ones!

- one creatures good is another creatures bad....my fish don't get my cat
food - my cat sure enjoys any spilt fish food....I'm not about to start
feeding either on food nutritienly made up for either (and it has to be
said it would get well expensive feeding my cat on fish food - volume
speaks for itself) - manufactured feeds are designed for the
animal/creature in question.....

And the formulas keep changing. What the feed co. called their best food
this year is sold next year with a "new and improved" label on it. The year
after that they'll have again improved it. The fish at the Zoo in Flushing
Meadows Park in NY were fed mostly popcorn, bits of kid's hot dogs, corn
meant for the ducks, etc. when I lived there,... and those suckers were 3'
long! How can that be explained? I never saw a dead ones floating or any
that appeared sick.

I don't need to have a pond to make this post - it's still on-topic and
contains no attacks....

There is nothing wrong with a disagreement as long as BOTH sides are
presented, not just the side of the moderator/s.


Gill
--
ZB....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*





--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

At what point has anyone - me, Jan or Roy - actually stated that this is
not a valid discussion....methinks the woman protests too much


Gill

Missing the point again - on a good usenet group moderated or not this
type of discussion without getting personal is a valid debate.....the
minute it gets into me, me, me it stops being valid and the minute
anyone wants to stop or attack anyone from stating their experience
being different is the time we all pack up shop - your experience might
be different and that is valid - others can legitimately argue against
this....called debate and freedom of speech....

and a very large JMO

Gill

"Gill Passman" wrote in message
...
~ janj wrote:

It could be consider inflammatory, yet it doesn't call anyone any nasty
names. I'd have to pass it, but than would *I*, as a moderator, be
considered bias because the above poster just happens to agree with me?
~ jan

IMO you should post it if you become a moderator....part of an ongoing
discussion with valid points - I don't actually see this as inflammatory -
just disagreeing with the comments being made....and there are no insults
contained within - just a difference of opinion.....Sameways if I posted
this on the same topic I would expect it to get posted (and I don't need
to own a pond to do so)

It easy to argue that a certain type of food produces large and fat
fish...but then again you can look at a human fed on junk food all of
their life - large and fat - healthy I very much doubt it....but then
again it will depend on the quality of the "inappropiate food" being
fed....if it is designed to produce well nourished puppies and kitties
then maybe it will not cause fish to become obese but potentially is
missing essential nutrients for the species of creature you are feeding
and so therefore not suitable - the nutritional requirements of all are
different but generally we tend to make this decision based on species -
one creatures good is another creatures bad....my fish don't get my cat
food - my cat sure enjoys any spilt fish food....I'm not about to start
feeding either on food nutritienly made up for either (and it has to be
said it would get well expensive feeding my cat on fish food - volume
speaks for itself) - manufactured feeds are designed for the
animal/creature in question.....

I don't need to have a pond to make this post - it's still on-topic and
contains no attacks....

Gill

Gill, I'm not sure why you appear to be harping on that last point. I and
others have said repeatedly the only thing we care about in a moderated
newsgroup is that posts be on topic, reasonably off topic, no flames, no
abuse, no irrelevant cross-posting.

I've read your posts here and in several of the aquaria newsgroups. You are
a poster I am comfortable reading and responding to because you've never
flamed me or done anything else that caused me to distrust you.

What does it matter whether or not you have a pond? It doesn't matter to
me, it doesn't matter to rec.ponders I've read over the years.

Gail

"Gill Passman" wrote in message
...
At what point has anyone - me, Jan or Roy - actually stated that this is
not a valid discussion....methinks the woman protests too much
==================
Ok, so am I to assume that BOTH sides would be and could be presented?
:-) Even if the moderator/s don't agree that research has been proven to be
flawed and fudged in so many cases in the past?

One of the main reasons I stopped exposing Quack medicine was when I learned
just what the truth was were research is concerned.
--
ZB....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*





--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Gill Passman" wrote in message
...
Missing the point again - on a good usenet group moderated or not this
type of discussion without getting personal is a valid debate.....the
minute it gets into me, me, me it stops being valid and the minute anyone
wants to stop or attack anyone from stating their experience being
different is the time we all pack up shop - your experience might be
different and that is valid - others can legitimately argue against
this....called debate and freedom of speech....

and a very large JMO
=========================
Ok, so then BOTH sides would be presented - even if the moderator/s
disagreed.
--
ZB....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*





--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Research said HRT was good for women too Jan. New research shows that was
quite wrong. No one says you should jump on any bandwagon. Just stop
trying to *CENSOR* what's posted here because you believe what some
researcher wrote. That is censorship. You want to silence those who have
had complete success with other feeds.

Like I said, I'm giving you the last word on your feelings regarding
"research". I've had my say.

But see paragraph above, there you go, all I've been doing is discussing
and disagreeing with you regarding "research" and you are calling it
censorship.

Jan, STOP reading your own agenda into this. No one is trying to convince
you of anything. I couldn't care less what you feed your fish or if you
have your fish for dinner tonight. All I'm saying is to STOP trying to
censor those of us who have great success with cheaper non specific
overpriced koi foods -

So you get to have your say, over & over, and I should shut up. O... K...

that means to stop using some research papers you
read as gospel to silence others.

Hmmm, I didn't even provide links to research, let alone papers. The lawyer
that repeats the same argument is still going to lose if the 1st time
around it didn't convince the jury. But hey, keep digging that hole, one
can always use another pond. :-D

And what's this, I can't provide links? I can't post back up, who is crying
censorship here, what do you call that?

Well I FOR ONE HAVE NEVER EVER CALLED YOU THOSE NAMES OR ANY NAMES!

I didn't say YOU specifically did.

Ah, yeah, you did, in another post about a week back, and you were implying
it in the post before this statement. And now you're saying I'm trying to
censor you!

What you did do was expect me to blindly
take the research you're going by as being as correct and right as though no
research errors occur, or occur rarely and that is not the case.

I don't expect you to do change anything that has worked for you. I'm just
countering your information with my own, just because my experience and
those of higher-end koi keepers and researchers agrees is just too bad. I
type this so others can decide for themselves. That's not censorship,
that's a good discussion and debate.

I wouldn't say your name with the same breath I would his.... no worry
there. ;-)

Ah, you did. Want me to go back and find the post? ~ jan

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:17:53 -0600, Tristan
wrote:

Arbitrarily buying a bag of "___________" and feeding it to anyhtng is
sure a scientific study for sure. No control no documentation to base
so called findings on, and its all speculation. More to saying the
fish look good and got fat and grew fast...certainly more to it than
that........Your methods of running a test is not even close to being
substantial in any findings you think you have discovered......You
just saved somne moeny is all you did and the fish more than likely
gained nothing but a full belly of junk food.


Now this is a good example moderators. Would we allow this post?

That's hard to say since Roy will disagree with anything I post here. There
are plenty of pictures of my fish on my website. Do they look like sick
balloons? If they were so bad off on such poor food why do they look so
healthy and lay eggs well into summer? Take another look at them on my
site. :-) I get no returns and no complaints form those who have bought
fish from me these past 5 years. :-)))

It could be consider inflammatory, yet it doesn't call anyone any nasty
names. I'd have to pass it, but than would *I*, as a moderator, be
considered bias because the above poster just happens to agree with
me? ~ jan

As I recall he once agreed with me that the expensive feeds were not
necessary, but I don't think I have it archived. Ok,... then what would you
do with my message pointing out how healthy my fish were on the cheaper
foods? How overrun with fry we are most of the time? Or how flawed so much
of the research is these days?
--
ZB....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*

All of those would have gone thru on my watch, no matter how repetitious I
thought they were. ~ jan

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 17:45:49 -0600, Tristan
wrote:

Ah so I did, but I also keep my koin na natural mud pond which is full
of natural stuff koi are meant to eat as well not kept in a liner or
preform pond, so ther eis a difference I do belive and I think the
others here will agree with me.
I feed catfish food, no trout as its not available here, but a 50
pound bag will last me a year or more as i use it only to throw a
small a maount out to entice the fish to come u p so I can have a look
see as to how they are all doing. Its called responsive feeding., Its
not meant to be nutritional in any way. It was a method recomeded to
me by the fisheries and biology department of The U of Florida. Do
you know of a better way? The entire object is get em up to look at,
not feed em enough to make em dependant or to give em any real
nourishment. Cheerios and other cereals was also on that list of
suggested responsive food stuff.

And I have no problem what so ever with that. I have no problem with Carol
feeding her fish whatever she wants or can afford. But, imho, people
shouldn't feed low quality food (especially non-fish food) to fish in a
liner pond with little to no natural food sources.

Now to add something to this (and I probably shouldn't) but I have seen it
happen that fish fed high-corn foods (taste like candy) will put their nose
at some of the higher quality feeds. Sometimes one has to buy small
containers of high quality food and see which the fish will like before
investing in the eco-bag-size. ~ jan

"~ janj" wrote in message
...
Research said HRT was good for women too Jan. New research shows that
was
quite wrong. No one says you should jump on any bandwagon. Just stop
trying to *CENSOR* what's posted here because you believe what some
researcher wrote. That is censorship. You want to silence those who have
had complete success with other feeds.

Like I said, I'm giving you the last word on your feelings regarding
"research". I've had my say.

But see paragraph above, there you go, all I've been doing is discussing
and disagreeing with you regarding "research" and you are calling it
censorship.

I called your disagreement censorship? Disagreeing is not censorship.
Please read it again. I said if only ONE SIDE is allowed on a moderated
group - than it is censorship.

Jan, STOP reading your own agenda into this. No one is trying to convince
you of anything. I couldn't care less what you feed your fish or if you
have your fish for dinner tonight. All I'm saying is to STOP trying to
censor those of us who have great success with cheaper non specific
overpriced koi foods -

So you get to have your say, over & over, and I should shut up. O... K...

See there you go again.... telling me what I said or what you think I said.
On a moderated group will this be allowed?

that means to stop using some research papers you
read as gospel to silence others.

Hmmm, I didn't even provide links to research, let alone papers.

I well remember reading a website that was recommended I read. Was it not
YOU who gave me the link to the research on Koi feeds?

The lawyer
that repeats the same argument is still going to lose if the 1st time
around it didn't convince the jury. But hey, keep digging that hole, one
can always use another pond. :-D

The shovel is in your hand.........

And what's this, I can't provide links? I can't post back up, who is
crying
censorship here, what do you call that?

You already provided links to some research on koi foods.

Well I FOR ONE HAVE NEVER EVER CALLED YOU THOSE NAMES OR ANY NAMES!

I didn't say YOU specifically did.

Ah, yeah, you did, in another post about a week back,

I said you called me a slut, an idiot? No, I don't think so. :-)

and you were implying
it in the post before this statement. And now you're saying I'm trying to
censor you!

What is your point Jan? What do you call silencing someone? What's the
name you use?

What you did do was expect me to blindly
take the research you're going by as being as correct and right as though
no
research errors occur, or occur rarely and that is not the case.


I don't expect you to do change anything that has worked for you. I'm just
countering your information with my own, just because my experience and
those of higher-end koi keepers and researchers agrees is just too bad. I
type this so others can decide for themselves. That's not censorship,
that's a good discussion and debate.

I wouldn't say your name with the same breath I would his.... no worry
there. ;-)

Ah, you did. Want me to go back and find the post? ~ jan

Go for it! If you ever called me a whore or idiot I didn't see the
post.......
--
ZB....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*







--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com