- Joined
- Jul 16, 2009
- Messages
- 6,019
- Reaction score
- 10,285
I think you are missing the forest for the trees here.
A thread tracking pure skip cycle instant reefs, no bottle bac
- Thread starter brandon429
- Start date
- Tagged users None
OP
OP
do you personally feel your own tank couldn't degrade a fish or two> I've seen two tangs degrade in a 55 before and nothing died or even closed up/no clouding, those are rather slow degradation rates compared to adding in liquid AC as was done in my thread example.
Last edited:
I have seen multiple tanks where a fish has died and if 'devoured' - or eaten by an anemone, there has been a rapid die off. Now, having said that, I once fed a 5 inch whole discus to an anemone - in the AM the only thing left was the skeleton. There was no effect on the tank.
I guarantee with near certitude that if you have a reef tank fully stocked with coral, etc - a dead fish is going to be a lot less of a problem or not a problem - depending on size, etc - than a tank that has just some bare live rock - since its fairly well known that corals etc take up ammonia. Unless one knows exactly the bioload of the dead xxxx and the exact size and composition of the tank (remaining fish and coral) - I don't think its possible to claim that nothing will happen with or without a sneeze. I mean - a firefish dying in a 100 gallon tank is likely to do nothing . A 5 inch adult angel likely will cause a problem
PS - yes - all of that data is invalid - not because its seneye - it's because all of the data is not similar - and most people owning a seneye are likely more experienced (i.e. have less likelihood of a death episode). As I said above - a mature reef with lots of coral will likely handle a fish death/high bioload incident better than a new tank with no coral and just some live rock. Additionally the other fish in the tank (i.e the stocking density) is also important - and as far as I know none of those 'tanks' were reviewed for any of those things - thus - its hard to make any conclusions - seneye or not
OP
OP
So none of the four permanent critics will validate my link
OK I accept that.
I don't accept any of your assertions, though. Stalemate continues.
The thread is awaiting more skip cycle builds. surely there's nothing left to argue about, for MN, Bean, Garf?
If someone appears with a tank we built all at once, that won't have any offense to you now that you've aired all grievances, here in my thread?
OK I accept that.
I don't accept any of your assertions, though. Stalemate continues.
The thread is awaiting more skip cycle builds. surely there's nothing left to argue about, for MN, Bean, Garf?
If someone appears with a tank we built all at once, that won't have any offense to you now that you've aired all grievances, here in my thread?
OP
OP
I've presented all I can besides the actual reef jobs.
My rules run my jobs, if you disagree that's been made known.
It won't stop tank transfer work, cycle analysis and skip cycle jobs thankfully. Demand still exists.
Surely there's nothing left to argue about now, that all of you reject the data? At what point can I be free from the negativity only the select few bring? Let me know.
My rules run my jobs, if you disagree that's been made known.
It won't stop tank transfer work, cycle analysis and skip cycle jobs thankfully. Demand still exists.
Surely there's nothing left to argue about now, that all of you reject the data? At what point can I be free from the negativity only the select few bring? Let me know.
OP
OP
I'm asking them to stop. Everyone but Lasse is on block, I don't see their recent posts is why. We're at the point they declined all proofs offered, that's max distance we can travel the issue on paper/ graph/ test on our tanks at home.
We're battling everything but how other people's reefs have turned out here.
If i simply only speak to those who are here to focus on the actual jobs we do: the thread can run ten more years. There's so many positive friends on the site, focusing there is wisest.
The majority are here for constructive cycle talk: re, the first three years here were peaceful because the jobs turned out well, in pattern.
The stalemate is that nothing they're posting, writing, changes the fact my rules run my outbound reef jobs and if the rule I use is bad: I'm here to account when the outcome goes south.
That's why their arguing should be all wrapped up now, they agree my link doesn't apply. their point was heard. Understood. Should be simple to get along now, they've won the link comparison battle.
Jobs continue on.
At what point are we allowed simply a clean slate start? They reject my data and discerned rules: ok.
clean start again, I've read they disagree with rules I stated, I've read that clearly. All set now.
We're battling everything but how other people's reefs have turned out here.
If i simply only speak to those who are here to focus on the actual jobs we do: the thread can run ten more years. There's so many positive friends on the site, focusing there is wisest.
The majority are here for constructive cycle talk: re, the first three years here were peaceful because the jobs turned out well, in pattern.
The stalemate is that nothing they're posting, writing, changes the fact my rules run my outbound reef jobs and if the rule I use is bad: I'm here to account when the outcome goes south.
That's why their arguing should be all wrapped up now, they agree my link doesn't apply. their point was heard. Understood. Should be simple to get along now, they've won the link comparison battle.
Jobs continue on.
At what point are we allowed simply a clean slate start? They reject my data and discerned rules: ok.
clean start again, I've read they disagree with rules I stated, I've read that clearly. All set now.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2009
- Messages
- 6,019
- Reaction score
- 10,285
You are correct, there is no stalemate — he refuses to actually discuss anything that would invalidate his position and just doubles down on the theme that all data the proves him wrong is invalid.
That does not preclude him from continually using thinly veiled insults and language to call others out…
He wonders why his threads get locked, but never considers his own behavior as problematic.
Everyone here has been overly kind and tried to engage him factually, he just refuses to respond in context.
These threads are a circus of his own making and I can’t honestly fathom why staff would reopen them, but that is their call.
Last edited:
The point of my last post was 'why do you require a Seneye' to disprove your theory? Thats like saying - I'll only consider your points if the sun doesn't rise for 3 days straight. Very few people use Seneye's. But as Randy Holmes Farley said - weeks or months ago - can't you just tell everyone your protocol?
OP
OP
OK Bean I completely read that post.
Understood. Can that be it, or there's more? Once you're done, expended on the matter, all we're going to do is peacefully await a couple skip cycle builds/ what we did first few years. Back to a calm, boring repetitive thread
Your anger was heard, validated too.
Clean start now for all?
I'll keep stating the same rules before and after the jobs I'll log this month, not to offend but because that's been the standard for five years so far/ we agree to disagree. Easy, simple.
Understood. Can that be it, or there's more? Once you're done, expended on the matter, all we're going to do is peacefully await a couple skip cycle builds/ what we did first few years. Back to a calm, boring repetitive thread
Your anger was heard, validated too.
Clean start now for all?
I'll keep stating the same rules before and after the jobs I'll log this month, not to offend but because that's been the standard for five years so far/ we agree to disagree. Easy, simple.
OP
OP
MNFish i read your addition too, no I don't want to respond bc I think that's just baiting me to argue. We're good now too? Can move on?
I was glad to link your two studies still. We got to see live rock specific things, I appreciated that part. It was objective, that's why it was helpful. Few words were needed for us to discern an outcome, we just needed a thread to read that you led.
I was glad to link your two studies still. We got to see live rock specific things, I appreciated that part. It was objective, that's why it was helpful. Few words were needed for us to discern an outcome, we just needed a thread to read that you led.
Similar threads
-
- Locked
-
- Locked
