Rock absorbing nutrients?

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

OK, I will summarize what I think the situation is, and I suggest we move on to other things and not keep beating this horse.

We are in agreement that many organisms can use multiple sources of N and P.

We are in agreement that the macroscopic organisms we intentionally keep have either not been evaluated (most) or show a preference for ammonia (a few).

We may disagree whether and when there are deviations from this.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Who exactly established that I’m wrong? You keep declaring it but that isn’t the same as demonstrating it.

More word games.
The problem isn't a single claim being right or wrong. It's that no version of it has ever survived contact with an answer. Denitrifiers, cyanobacteria, diatoms, urea, corals without symbionts, fish, each one got addressed, and each time you swapped it for the next instead of standing on any of them. "Who proved me wrong" only works if you pick one and hold still. You present an ever moving target of sidesteps and deflections, now spanning three pages.

 

[BeanAnimal]

OK, I will summarize what I think the situation is, and I suggest we move on to other things and not keep beating this horse.

We are in agreement that many organisms can use multiple sources of N and P.

We are in agreement that the macroscopic organisms we intentionally keep have either not been evaluated (most) or show a preference for ammonia (a few).

We may disagree whether and when there are deviations from this.

We cross posted, and I respect your desire to move on even if I think your clear generosity gives far more cover than the record supports. Thank you for your contributions here, they have been informative nonetheless.

 

[sixty_reefer]

OK, I will summarize what I think the situation is, and I suggest we move on to other things and not keep beating this horse.

We are in agreement that many organisms can use multiple sources of N and P.

We are in agreement that the macroscopic organisms we intentionally keep have either not been evaluated (most) or show a preference for ammonia (a few).

We may disagree whether and when there are deviations from this.

I reckon we’ve defined the limits of the evidence clearly enough now. I’m good with leaving it at that.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I reckon we’ve defined the limits of the evidence clearly enough now. I’m good with leaving it at that.

"we've defined the limits of the evidence" isn't what Randy said. He said most tank organisms haven't been evaluated or show an ammonia preference. That's not a mutual concession or collaborative agreement, and it's not an open question either. One more reframe on the way out. It never ends.

@Randy Holmes-Farley I truly apologize for not directly adhering to your wishes, but this is just more of the same every thread. Reframe until you, me, everyone else here, the entire forum is exhausted. People must give up and walk away, or the thread becomes a dumpster fire of ridiculous deflections and reframes until it gets locked.

 

[sixty_reefer]

"we've defined the limits of the evidence" isn't what Randy said. He said most tank organisms haven't been evaluated or show an ammonia preference. That's not a mutual concession or collaborative agreement, and it's not an open question either. One more reframe on the way out. It never ends.

@Randy Holmes-Farley I truly apologize for not directly adhering to your wishes, but this is just more of the same every thread. Reframe until you, me, everyone else here, the entire forum is exhausted. People must give up and walk away, or the thread becomes a dumpster fire of ridiculous deflections and reframes until it gets locked.

Bean, I’ve already made it clear that your constant commentary about me is becoming tiresome. Please stop making me the subject of the discussion.