"~ janj" wrote in message
...

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

Zëbulon wrote:'stuff'!
=======================
I can't find any post accusing her of calling me vile names! I did post
one speaking in general terms but people on this group are at the point of
taking everything personal.
--

You do it all the time.

Zëbulon wrote:
============================
Must everyone think, feel
and believe the same on rec.ponds?


That is the idead of the new moderated group.

Zëbulon wrote:

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.

Undersized by what standard?

One of the oft-stated problems with catfish & trout food is that it is
designed to cause a fish to put on weight as fast as possible, so that it
can be harvested as fast as possible.

Koi are not intended for harvesting. Your comparisons, while qualifying as
research, are not well-designed research. Koi have life spans up to a
century. If the ones fed on high-priced food live an average of 80 years,
and the ones fed on catfish chow average only 20 years, then it's not as
good - but it'll be a long time before you can show your catfish chow is as
good as high-priced food for the long term.
--
derek

Zëbulon wrote:


"~ 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?

No, it's illogical to say that "research is bad" and that you can't learn
anything from "further research" - especially when as an example you're
talking about what was proven with _further_ research.
--
derek

I harvest my koi and cook em on the grill too, so who says they are
not meant to be harvested. Maybe I need to pull a few culls and have
em put on some fast extra weight so they make the grill appointment in
a shorter time frame. Don;t forget USENET is not stricktly related to
folks in what is deemed industrialized countries it also goes to
poverty stricken thrid and lower class countries where a feast on Fido
or Morris the cat is just as welcome as carving up that Turkey or a
$50,000 GC koi they managed to get their hands on. Perhaps CArol needs
to go to some thrid world o****ry and do some long term
experimentation on feeding koi cheap food.




On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 13:37:31 -0400, Derek Broughton
wrote:

Zëbulon wrote:

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.

Undersized by what standard?

One of the oft-stated problems with catfish & trout food is that it is
designed to cause a fish to put on weight as fast as possible, so that it
can be harvested as fast as possible.

Koi are not intended for harvesting. Your comparisons, while qualifying as
research, are not well-designed research. Koi have life spans up to a
century. If the ones fed on high-priced food live an average of 80 years,
and the ones fed on catfish chow average only 20 years, then it's not as
good - but it'll be a long time before you can show your catfish chow is as
good as high-priced food for the long term.



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

If someones parents did a bit more research on birth control we would
not have this problem now would we Carol?


On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 13:38:51 -0400, Derek Broughton
wrote:

Zëbulon wrote:


"~ 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?

No, it's illogical to say that "research is bad" and that you can't learn
anything from "further research" - especially when as an example you're
talking about what was proven with _further_ research.



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

"Derek Broughton" wrote in message
...
Zëbulon wrote:

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?
====================================
No, it's illogical to say that "research is bad" and that you can't learn
anything from "further research"
- especially when as an example you're
talking about what was proven with _further_ research.
==================================
That is not what I meant Derek. I can't seem to make myself clear. :*(
Research is necessary and I realize that. But research done yesterday,
claiming what is GOOD for us may be superseded by even NEWER research
tomorrow disproving these truths. Meanwhile, how many people were harmed
taking the research as gospel? Knowing what one researcher claims can be
disproved by different researcher, why take it as gospel? How do we know
"which" research was well done and is RIGHT, is safe to take seriously?
Suddenly what was good for us yesterday, they now know kills or harms us.
IOW, what was TRUE yesterday may be proven to be poor or bad research
tomorrow - like the trans-fats and hormone issue. How on earth can that be
explained? Why couldn't they see this the first time around? That's why I
have little faith in most research now. I know what I believe *today* can
be blown out of the water tomorrow. Sorry,... maybe I need to make myself
clearer when I 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

Ahhhhhhhhh, just because you elected to uyse a quck doctor is not a
resaon to lose fatih in research. Or decide to go organic or
holistic.....you sure were not all that smart in those choices were
yu carol. There is far more folks alive due to research and real
medicine than there are that survived by holistic and organic crap.

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 13:04:55 -0600, Zëbulon
wrote:


"Derek Broughton" wrote in message
...
Zëbulon wrote:

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?
====================================
No, it's illogical to say that "research is bad" and that you can't learn
anything from "further research"
- especially when as an example you're
talking about what was proven with _further_ research.
==================================
That is not what I meant Derek. I can't seem to make myself clear. :*(
Research is necessary and I realize that. But research done yesterday,
claiming what is GOOD for us may be superseded by even NEWER research
tomorrow disproving these truths. Meanwhile, how many people were harmed
taking the research as gospel? Knowing what one researcher claims can be
disproved by different researcher, why take it as gospel? How do we know
"which" research was well done and is RIGHT, is safe to take seriously?
Suddenly what was good for us yesterday, they now know kills or harms us.
IOW, what was TRUE yesterday may be proven to be poor or bad research
tomorrow - like the trans-fats and hormone issue. How on earth can that be
explained? Why couldn't they see this the first time around? That's why I
have little faith in most research now. I know what I believe *today* can
be blown out of the water tomorrow. Sorry,... maybe I need to make myself
clearer when I post. :-)

--
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!

"Derek Broughton" wrote in message
...
Zëbulon wrote:

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.

Undersized by what standard?

The standard of the usual size of my young koi in the fall. These are at
least 1 to 1 1/2" (or more) shorter in length and much thinner then they
should be. One already died this morning. We just had a deep freeze here
for a few days. Today it's in the 60s. They're not carrying enough weight
to get through the winter. I expect we'll lose most of them. I assure you
Derek, next year they'll be back on Catfish and Trout chow mixed with a few
handfuls of puppy and kitten chow as treats.

One of the oft-stated problems with catfish & trout food is that it is
designed to cause a fish to put on weight as fast as possible, so that it
can be harvested as fast as possible.

Yes, I know. I read the recommended site. The young koi for the past few
years would be salable size for the spring when the local stores want them.
These actually look puny and almost stunted. Some have a head that looks
too big for their bodies. They should be a good 4" to 4 1/2" long now and
of good weight. Nicely fleshed, carrying reserves for winter. Of course
some would be smaller and some larger. The adults and yearlings did ok
although they're slimmer this winter than usual. I think they have enough
weight to carry them through until spring. Feeding starts here sometime in
April, depending on the weather.

Koi are not intended for harvesting. Your comparisons, while qualifying
as
research, are not well-designed research.

I'm not calling it research Derek. I said what works for some people may
not for another DESPITE what research shows. The conditions here at my
house are probably not the same as those in a laboratory or research
facility.

Koi have life spans up to a
century. If the ones fed on high-priced food live an average of 80 years,
and the ones fed on catfish chow average only 20 years, then it's not as
good - but it'll be a long time before you can show your catfish chow is
as
good as high-priced food for the long term.

As good? Let's put it this way - I got a much better rate of growth in my
fry with it, under my conditions, and in my climate and in my water, with
my filters and pumps. Perhaps others don't mind keeping slow growing fry
for 2 years to salable age but that means twice the tanks, filters,
etc...... there goes any profit and it would be a lot more work. Profit
is used to sustain the hobby.

Derek, I'm over 60 and not worried about my koi living to be 80 years old.
Even if they reach 20 years they'll probably outlive me. ;-) Plus as I
find those "special fry" in the tubs, I sell off a few adults and replace
them with younger fish so there's a turnover. These are not show-fish so I
doubt any will even be here for 20 years. The oldest are 7 or 8 years old
now.
--
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 Mon, 11 Dec 2006 13:43:14 -0600, Zëbulon
wrote:


"Derek Broughton" wrote in message
...
Zëbulon wrote:

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.

Undersized by what standard?

The standard of the usual size of my young koi in the fall. These are at
least 1 to 1 1/2" (or more) shorter in length and much thinner then they
should be. One already died this morning. We just had a deep freeze here
for a few days. Today it's in the 60s. They're not carrying enough weight
to get through the winter. I expect we'll lose most of them. I assure you
Derek, next year they'll be back on Catfish and Trout chow mixed with a few
handfuls of puppy and kitten chow as treats.

One of the oft-stated problems with catfish & trout food is that it is
designed to cause a fish to put on weight as fast as possible, so that it
can be harvested as fast as possible.

Yes, I know. I read the recommended site. The young koi for the past few
years would be salable size for the spring when the local stores want them.
These actually look puny and almost stunted. Some have a head that looks
too big for their bodies. They should be a good 4" to 4 1/2" long now and
of good weight. Nicely fleshed, carrying reserves for winter. Of course
some would be smaller and some larger. The adults and yearlings did ok
although they're slimmer this winter than usual. I think they have enough
weight to carry them through until spring. Feeding starts here sometime in
April, depending on the weather.

Koi are not intended for harvesting. Your comparisons, while qualifying
as
research, are not well-designed research.

I'm not calling it research Derek. I said what works for some people may
not for another DESPITE what research shows. The conditions here at my
house are probably not the same as those in a laboratory or research
facility.

Koi have life spans up to a
century. If the ones fed on high-priced food live an average of 80 years,
and the ones fed on catfish chow average only 20 years, then it's not as
good - but it'll be a long time before you can show your catfish chow is
as
good as high-priced food for the long term.

As good? Let's put it this way - I got a much better rate of growth in my
fry with it, under my conditions, and in my climate and in my water, with
my filters and pumps. Perhaps others don't mind keeping slow growing fry
for 2 years to salable age but that means twice the tanks, filters,
etc...... there goes any profit and it would be a lot more work. Profit
is used to sustain the hobby.

Derek, I'm over 60 and not worried about my koi living to be 80 years old.
Even if they reach 20 years they'll probably outlive me. ;-) Plus as I
find those "special fry" in the tubs, I sell off a few adults and replace
them with younger fish so there's a turnover. These are not show-fish so I
doubt any will even be here for 20 years. The oldest are 7 or 8 years old

So yur fish do not mean a thing to you then. you care nothing about
their proper keeping......Yur fish are all inbreeds and that alone
makes a difference. Or perhaps its after effects of being fed such
cheap crappy rations is now starting to show its merits, yet yur too
stupid to realize it CArol.



now.
--
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!

Zëbulon wrote:

That is not what I meant Derek. I can't seem to make myself clear. :*(
Research is necessary and I realize that. But research done yesterday,
claiming what is GOOD for us may be superseded by even NEWER research
tomorrow disproving these truths. Meanwhile, how many people were harmed
taking the research as gospel? Knowing what one researcher claims can be
disproved by different researcher, why take it as gospel?

Gospel, never, but because essentially science is a collaborative field,
it's not unreasonable to put a degree of faith in the results. By the time
science in the field of health is deemed acceptably well researched to be
applied to the public, a great many scientists have seen the data and had a
chance to disprove it. Unfortunately the HRT experience proved that a
number of unreasonable assumptions had never been questioned - but even
scientists are human. Mistakes will happen, and one reason this one did is
that after the thalidomide disaster researchers and ethics boards have been
extremely reluctant to test drugs on women.

How do we know
"which" research was well done and is RIGHT, is safe to take seriously?
Suddenly what was good for us yesterday, they now know kills or harms us.
IOW, what was TRUE yesterday may be proven to be poor or bad research
tomorrow - like the trans-fats and hormone issue. How on earth can that
be
explained? Why couldn't they see this the first time around?

Trans-fats is easy - we keep narrowing down the list of inputs and
separating out those that are bad from those that aren't (but aren't
necessarily _good_).

That's why I
have little faith in most research now. I know what I believe *today*
can
be blown out of the water tomorrow. Sorry,... maybe I need to make myself
clearer when I post. :-)

I have little faith in Doctors - but I still know that I want to see one if
I break a leg and probably if I find a tumor.

Which all neatly sidesteps the issue of feeding cheap food to pricey koi.
--
derek

~ janj wrote:
On 11 Dec 2006 07:15:15 GMT, wrote:

I'm glad I don't archive this 'stuff'!

I wasn't going to give it more printed space, especially since it
contained other peoples names who wouldn't appreciate it. But it is nice
to have when someone turns a good discussion into an argument. One can
always google and find stuff. ;-) ~ jan

Do you know Kevin S. Wilson? ;-D
Sorry. He's an alt.food.barbecue joke who often Googles archives to find
stuff to turn a good discussion into an argument. ;-(

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!

Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! !
~Semper Fi~

Ok, this is way off topic but I kind of wonder how many of those cancers
allegedly to be caused by HRT in fact were (and I am not saying that
some weren't and have not been illustrated to have been so - Oh and by
what - research I believe...it is a risk factor on cancer assessment
these days)...and if there was a control study done to quantify how many
women not on HRT also fell foul of the same disease and if these
statistics actually match....and indeed how much the press in all of our
respective countries jumped on the bandwagon to vilify a valid treatment
for a lot of women going through the menapause with a scare tactic that
"incidents of cancer are higher in those taking this drug" - thing is
more women take HRT than ever happened before...women still get
cancer...more women take the drug so by definition you get a higher
percentage of those taking the drug that now get cancer than you would
do if fewer women took HRT...Statistics, statistics and more damn lies
masked as statistics....looking at statistical research is one thing -
and I am not saying an invalid form of research but needs backing up by
science as well....Breast cancer is on the increase, consumption of HRT
meds are on the increase ergo HRT is the problem and the research is
flawed....a little bit of "research" would actually show that the
increase in breast cancer cases is within the "pre-menopausal" group of
women....who haven't even sniffed an HRT tab let alone taken one....and
then lets look at the whole factors in an increase in pre-menopausal
breast cancer and I believe that "research" although not giving a
definitive answer is suggesting that the stress of modern living plays a
big part in all of this - might explain the increase in young as well as
old....

Research gives us a chance of understanding such things....the survival
rate of a breast cancer patient is now infinitely higher than it was 10
years ago and unimaginable 20 years ago....and how did this
happen....oh, forgive me, it was research....well on a personal level
long may research continue.....Just a few years ago, without the
research, every woman with breast cancer was condemned to death....now
there is hope....why...I believe it is down to research and developing
stuff they find out and more research....and then treating people to
give them true hope of getting through this disease....and those they
can't help giving them a few more years to see their children grow up to
an age when they can actually remember who Mummy was....

Now to pull this whole thing back on topic - which technically is
off-topic for the subject line but on topic for rec.ponds - no
commercial company producing fish food is about to produce bogus
research claiming that their feed is better than dog or cat food for
feeding fish....they will spend millions perfecting a good diet
specifically aimed at promoting the growth, health and well-being of the
fish it is sold to feed....if they didn't they would be straight down in
the dung heap.....people can go out and "research" what food is
best...but I'm sorry I have no issues in stating that food designed for
a specific animal is designed just with that animal in mind....if any
animal food provider was proven to just adapt their feedstuff by one or
two minerals/vitamins rather than fundementally providing a nutritional
balance for the creature in question they would go out of business
quicker than their b*tts could touch the ground - especially in the US
where it would almost get sued quicker than they could say the word
"b*tt"....

Fish food for fish, Cat food for cats, dog food for dogs....mcd*n*lds
for those that occassionally enjoy a treat but not as a staple diet....

Gill

PS Apologies all but this is a subject I feel strongly about even if it
is sort of "off-topic"

==============
The post below is what I found for 12/3. If you mean my comment that you
stirred the pot jan, that's another post altogether. is this new reader
missing messages also?

I typed: Dated 12/4 2:56pm not 12/3

I am not going to find it for you. Nor am I going to reprint it. As far as
missing, you wrote it, so you should be aware of it. ~ jan