Dunno what the heck has gone on with my previous post but can’t be arsed to edit it.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
arsed or asked?Dunno what the heck has gone on with my previous post but can’t be arsed to edit it.
I can't post 3 reactions to this or I would. Bravo!arsed or asked?
here's a nice **** for ya
I think I got him heated when I called him mean, in a thread where someone asked about what to do with old sand, and I made a comment about no study into tap water rinses, and the maintaining of micro fauna and beneficial bacterium surviving through them.
I never said they don't work to re-use old sand, but hinted maybe there's a better way (the way I've done it and now recommended to someone one time), and he got a little huffy :-( like I said his method wasn't a good method. Even though I never said that.
Sounds about right. XD He does get very huffy whenever there is even an inkling that someone thinks his method is bad. Even if... that's not the case.arsed or asked?
here's a nice **** for ya
I think I got him heated when I called him mean, in a thread where someone asked about what to do with old sand, and I made a comment about no study into tap water rinses, and the maintaining of micro fauna and beneficial bacterium surviving through them.
I never said they don't work to re-use old sand, but hinted maybe there's a better way (the way I've done it and now recommended to someone one time), and he got a little huffy :-(. He was acting a bit like I said "his method wasn't a good method." Even though I never said that.
dunno, have you got an API test that we can just ignore. I’m surprised Brandon ain’t been hunted down for talking crap about them.Are we just ;Troll ing? haha!
Most peer-reviewed papers are a nearly impenetrable wall of text and numbers, eventually followed by "see, I proved X". Most times, I don't even see how they got to X or X was never mentioned. (Speaking purely of reef-tank-oriented stuff.)Do you feel this is true or false
what major reefing practices do have formal published paper backing?
which ones don’t?
ever seen a Harvard study on Pico reefs? Pls link that if so
one off anecdotes are common, prone to error, completely prone to assessment bias on both ends as the typist and reader try and communicate a best means
but what happens if you can pattern an anecdote in ten thousand reefs, does that inch the meter towards legitimacy or just not until Harvard says so?
so many subjects can be reviewed in this context
using just the lowly pico reef, the formal vs anecdotal breakdown went like this irl:
1. you cannot keep mixed lps and sps in a pico reef, they’ll die due to allelopathy (links ten formal studies proving allelopathy exists and how it kills, from the ocean)
2. a few tiny systems popped up online twenty years ago. The initial response was ‘fake’ or ‘plumbed‘ and then forty reefs arose. Nano-reef.com arose and began patterning out small reefs, were all the hobbyists aligned to lie in pattern, or were they simply reporting alternate findings because the context of study changed?
3. after pico reef #200,471 was posted we can clearly see anecdote beat the pants off slow but highly, highly accurate peer review in at least one niche of reefing.
what about curing dinoflagellates in a reef tank. Any formal peer reviews using reef tanks? I know there are ocean studies galore
but in context and in a home reef tank, Im thinking any Harvard biology teacher who owns a reef tank with a dinos issue is seeking forum pattern anecdote in the matter for their best possible recourse.
Is the wikipedia form of reefing actually better at making discoveries in context than professional writers and researchers?