Fuel To The Fire Of Acclimatization

[jollysue]

I can't take the time to read all your dismissals now. But my position is that you may dismiss an idea, but to refute it takes evidence.

I presented the article for folks to look at and discuss. There are some interesting points that can be addressed and worked on. Such as the rise in ammonia and ph as the temperature rises. Is that false? If so show me the studies and the data or just say you don't care and let it be. Just dismissing it is not dealing with the assertion. If it is true, should I take that into account today when my shipment of rare Corys arrives?

Perhaps my thought that you were more knowledgable and knew how and where to find the information on a subject that is not my area was incorrect?

I have to take care of many things before I sleep today, to paraphrase a great American poet's musings, and although the snow is deep; the way is long; and I must not stay. Or is it snow I am stepping in? A smilely face does it. right?

 

[andywg]

How can they be sure that it was thermic shock? Was there an autopsy? Where are the Autopsy results?

Lol how could you ascertain that a fish died from thermic shock by doing an autopsy??

How can you be sure it was the temperature change that killed them at all?

Unless you are a trained veternarian, there would be no way to tell from an autopsy.

So how does an amateur koi keeper know just from looking at them?

It's not like cysts form or organs explode due to a change in temperature, it's all part of the nervous system which a normal person can't examine and make a true conclusion.

Which entirely proves the point I was making (as pointed out by bignose).

Now, what did you accuse me of? Oh yes, ignoring points and comments that prove me wrong. Well I think that would make me Mr Kettle, and you Mr Pot, n'est ce pas? Don't get all upset at me just because you read a piece, saw what you liked, accused me of not reading it all and then have to look a little silly when I point out your source disagrees with you.

I can't take the time to read all your dismissals now. But my position is that you may dismiss an idea, but to refute it takes evidence.

Wrong. You are demanding evidence to prove a negative. That can't be done, nor should it ever be asked. I could say that fish can survive in the upper atmosphere without water. How could you prove me wrong (without having friends in NASA)? You couldn't. If a new claim is made, that claim must be backed up by evidence and/or proof.

I presented the article for folks to look at and discuss. There are some interesting points that can be addressed and worked on. Such as the rise in ammonia and ph as the temperature rises.

Indeed, it raises interesting points. But too many people are throwing suggestions around without any supporting evidence

Is that false? If so show me the studies and the data or just say you don't care and let it be. Just dismissing it is not dealing with the assertion.

See my first response. You are again requesting that someone prove a negative.

If it is true, should I take that into account today when my shipment of rare Corys arrives?

If it is true, then it is something to take into account. At this point in time there is no definite evidence as to what is best, so it is down to the individual and what they feel happiest doing.

Perhaps my thought that you were more knowledgable and knew how and where to find the information on a subject that is not my area was incorrect?

Perhaps. I never claim to be super intelligent. I read quite a lot, and have a knack for both remembering the basics of ideas I have seen, but also where I saw them, so I can often review the actual text and then post here without having to use "I seem to recall" but "In x book y is written". It seems to me that you have decided that you like what was written on a couple of websites and have put forward those views. When I pointed out flaws, or a lack of evidence for statements, you got very defensive with me (yet no one moaned when bignose asked for evidence - go figure ). Whenever someone asks for evidence to back up the statements made, instead you request we post evidence to the contrary, which is not how a proper debate about anything scientific works.

It is a shame no one with a very good grounding in ichthyology (or exothermic animals' response to temperature changes) has been able to answer my points about how well animals cope with temperature change back to their ideal, or temperature changes back to a starting point when they have not fully acclimatised away from it. I am truly interested in the answer to this, but am unlikely to buy a general zoology book any time soon (and it would appear to not be a common subject in ichthyological reference books).

 

[ArauraDiscus]

Lol how could you ascertain that a fish died from thermic shock by doing an autopsy?? Unless you are a trained veternarian, there would be no way to tell from an autopsy. It's not like cysts form or organs explode due to a change in temperature, it's all part of the nervous system which a normal person can't examine and make a true conclusion.

Actually, that is exactly andy's point. You can't claim that thermal (or pH or harndess or anything else) shock was involved unless you can identify it as such. That's why studies conducted by professionals carry so much more weight than anecdotal stories of people on this forum. That's why controls and strict experimental methods are needed to identify what really happened, not just the same statements written in many different places all over the Internet.

Thats fine but that only plays into my hands. It doesn't help his argument at all.

 

[andywg]

Let me get this right:

You say:

Actually I think you argue just to argue. Your constantly proven wrong yet you never give up. Because the final statement says in fact that, the freshwater koi, trout, and bass showed dramaticly less losses when acclimated over 30 minutes. Thats is everything in terms of this argument. THat reputes what you are saying, yet you brush it off by saying, well most of the argument is about saltwater. The one part about fresh proves you wrong and you ignore it, how convenient.

Referring to the point that the koi club bloke said about losing fish from thermic shock. I then point out that he can't be sure it was thermic shock (pointing out flaws in his method, which in turn become flaws in any conclusion). Your response is:

How can they be sure that it was thermic shock? Was there an autopsy? Where are the Autopsy results?

Lol how could you ascertain that a fish died from thermic shock by doing an autopsy?? Unless you are a trained veternarian, there would be no way to tell from an autopsy. It's not like cysts form or organs explode due to a change in temperature, it's all part of the nervous system which a normal person can't examine and make a true conclusion.

This exactly holds up my point. He cannot be sure it was thermic shock that was causing the problems. The 30 minutes point cannot be held to be true or accurate without full details of how they ascertained what killed the fish. From that point on your statement that the 30 minute comment proves me wrong is inherently flawed. Do you not see? This is without then pointing out that the next sentance of the methodology you rely on completely contradicts what you are saying.

This first point above is pointed out to you by bignose, so you respond:

Lol how could you ascertain that a fish died from thermic shock by doing an autopsy?? Unless you are a trained veternarian, there would be no way to tell from an autopsy. It's not like cysts form or organs explode due to a change in temperature, it's all part of the nervous system which a normal person can't examine and make a true conclusion.

Actually, that is exactly andy's point. You can't claim that thermal (or pH or harndess or anything else) shock was involved unless you can identify it as such. That's why studies conducted by professionals carry so much more weight than anecdotal stories of people on this forum. That's why controls and strict experimental methods are needed to identify what really happened, not just the same statements written in many different places all over the Internet.

Thats fine but that only plays into my hands. It doesn't help his argument at all.

Somehow, me pointing out that your conclusion is wrong plays into your hands and doesn't help my argument.

Remind me again, exactly what is my argument?

Seriously, read through all the posts again before posting. Just because you don't like me, does not make anything I write less cogent, and indulging in ad hominem attacks will gain you nothing. All I have done is pointed out where the statements written do not match up with what could generally be expected and requested some decent evidence to back it up. No evidence has been forthcoming.

 

[fishlette]

I am not going to do all the research for you, andywg. This company researches. If you really need indepth documentation then get it.

Oh no no no no!


You bring the claim, you bring the evidence to support it. Why should I have to find evidence to prove a claim originally typed by you? That is not how scientific debates work.

You bring the new claim that goes against what is believed by the majority, you bring the evidence.

But if not then you can be relieved of the responsibility of dismissing the premise and addressing the issues. A biologist says temp acclimation takes time. You dismissed him but I didn't see that you effectively refuted him.

I don't doubt it takes time, but how long? Also, where exactly did I say that temperature acclimatisation takes no time?

No one has provided any sort of evidence based link for showing how long it takes. I have searched, but as I am not an a research institute I do not have access to published papers. I know bignose is, and he doesn't believe the 10 day time scale either.

You seem extremely confident of your original post, so why don't you find evidence to back up your original claim, rather than demanding I do it?

I looked it up. There is a difference between accliamis/zation and acclimating; it said in two different places. You can google it. As I remember Acclitimas/zation is a change in a single element affecting an organism that may change back. Acclimate is a change in a complex of elements.

Strange, every thing I have googled (such as dictionaries) states that to acclimatise is to acclimate.

Acclimate was a verb that fell out of use in Britain between the 18th and 19th century when acclimatize replaced it. At some point between the 19th and 20th century the British changed ize spellings to ise and hence the three interchangeable verbs.

All of the research paper abstracts I can find use a slash between them and then proceed to use only one of them indicating (to me at least) that the terms are interchangable.

Rather than just telling you to google it I will provide links:

http/www.thefreedictionary.com/acclimatising

http/separatedbyacommonlanguage.blogspot...ze-another.html


<a href="http/www.wordwebonline.com/en/ACCLIMATE" target="_blank">http/www.wordwebonline.com/en/ACCLIMATE</a>


<a href="http/www.allwords.com/word-acclimatise.html" target="_blank">http/www.allwords.com/word-acclimatise.html</a>


<a href="http/sorabji.com/d/dictionary/Acclimate/" target="_blank">http/sorabji.com/d/dictionary/Acclimate/</a>

So it actually appears that acclimate, acclimatise and acclimatize are all synonyms. I have found 5 sources indicating this (and even provided links, rather than keeping my sources mysterious).

Edit--

An extra couple are here. Firstly from a discussion of the use of the words acclimate, acclimatise, adapt etc.

In the following I will use the term ACCLIMATIZATION, but the content applies equally to ACCLIMATION.

http/www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant475/Readings/r3.pdf

And then Putnam's word book of synonyms lists acclimate and acclimatize as synonyms.

http/www.fullbooks.com/Putnam-s-Word-Bookx25021.html

OMG!!!!!! really?? wow i never realised...lol i ony ask out of sheer curiosity, but how?? i had no idea after hearing everyone say how bettas dont like salt etc etc

including andywg. Perhaps you are testing the fish out of his natural environment? Baiting his public, perhaps?

Remember that a common name can refer to more than one fish (think angelfish and butterflyfish as well).

I was, of course, referring to my (Calloplesiops altivelis).

lol trust me to think of one thing and roll with it hehehehehe didnt think of anything other than fighter fish when i saw 'betta'

well that makes it less exciting now lol

 

[rdd1952]

Part of what we are talking about here has no real relevence to acclimating fish that we buy except in very rare cases. Even fish that are bought online are rarely in the bag for more than 48 hours (most likely less than 24 to 36 hours). If it does indeed take 10 days for them to acclimate to a new temperature, then, as mentioned earlier, we aren't acclimating them from a temperature they are acclimatedto. We are only taking them back to the temperature they were in before they were bagged or at least something very close (76 in breeders tank, 78 in yours - not a big difference) so we aren't really acclimating them at all to the temperature. Even if the water temp in the bag is 15 degrees higher or lower than your tank temp (and I think that would be another issue that could kill the fish if it were "plopped" as the original article and the one quoted below suggest should be the case), if it takes 10 days to acclimate, that isn't their new temperature yet. The bold faced statement in the quote below pretty much states that our method of acclimating them to our tank temperature has nothing to do with the temperature of the water in the bag because they have only been in it a short period of time, certainly less than "several days" unless it's a rare case where a shipement gets lost and later finds it's destination.

Based on controlled experiments, (the experiments were conducted using bass, trout, and carp but it is assumed that the results also apply to Koi) it was found that floating the transport bags in the pond for 30 minutes prior to release decreased the mortality rate due to temperature shock, particularly for small fish. This test was conducted with the fish bagged for one hour. For fish that had been bagged for four hours, it was found that the mortality rate increased for all sizes of the fish if the bag was floated for 30 minutes. My recommendation is that if the fish have been bagged for two or more hours, it is better to release them immediately than to subject the fish to the "bad" water in the bag for an additional half-hour. Thirty minutes of floating will prevent a sudden shock if the temperature difference is large, but it will not acclimatize the fish to the new temperature. Actual temperature acclimation of a fish takes several days, similar to us dealing with jet lag. It is not only the temperature the fish needs to be accustomed to but also the pH, hardness, alkalinity, "the taste", etc. of it's new surroundings.

This is something else that doesn't make sense to me. I fail to see a significant difference in the fish being in a bag for 1 hour versus 4 hours. How much additional waste would a fish produce in the additional 3 hours? Surely not enough to be lethal. I would find it hard to believe that the ammonia level in a bag could rise higher than about .25ppm in 4 hours time but maybe I'm wrong. Certainly it wouldn't go as high as 1ppm unless it was a very messy fish that had just eaten.

I would also like to see the rates they are talking about. Are we talking a 10, 20, 30 percent increase/decrease or are we talking .5, 1 to 2 percent or even less. Just stating that there was an increase or decrease means nothing to me unless you state the amount.

Last but not least, I agree totally that you can't point the finger at thermal shock when determining the cause of death unless that was the only variable in the equation. For instance if the water in the bag came from the tank they were in and they were put back into the same tank. Even then, there could be the factor of stress from being bagged, possible injury during netting or in the bag, etc. that could cause the deaths. I just fail to see that temperature change is that big a factor in acclimation and the main reason I have always floated the bags and added water was to adjust for the pH which may not be an issue either.

 

[fishlette]

How can they be sure that it was thermic shock? Was there an autopsy? Where are the Autopsy results?

Lol how could you ascertain that a fish died from thermic shock by doing an autopsy?? Unless you are a trained veternarian, there would be no way to tell from an autopsy. It's not like cysts form or organs explode due to a change in temperature, it's all part of the nervous system which a normal person can't examine and make a true conclusion.

however, it could rule out other possibilities giving more validity to the statement that it was the thermic shock that did indeed kill the fish.

it is also possible for people other than vets to perform an autopsy on a fish. the following is an exert from a course guideline written by Dr. Erik L. Johnson, Veterinarian and Fish Health Specialist

How do you open the fish?
1) Lay the fish on its left side, with the head pointing to your right. Its belly should be facing you.
2) The first cut exposes the gills. Cut from the ventral midline of the fish between the gill covers [opercula], up to the eye and back to the top of the gill cover. The operculum is removed and the gills are plainly visible.
3) Examine and record gill condition. The gills should be smooth and beet red.
4) The second cut begins to open the abdomen. Cut from the anal pore (vent) forward on the midline to the boney junction between the pectoral fins.
5) Be as careful as you can not to cut too deeply or you may stir or disturb the internal organs, which could make the proper diagnosis difficult.
6) Cut upward from slightly in front of the pectoral fins but behind the head to the highest point you can before you hit the thick, dorsal musculature. Angle the scissors to the left when this resistance is met, and cut back across the body towards the tail, staying as "high up" on the side of the fish as you can to reveal the widest possible window on the organs. Bring this cut to its conclusion at the vent again. A substantial oval-shaped filet of fish is removed and the internal organs come into view.

What can you learn when the fish is opened?

ORGAN or TISSUE Gross (Obvious) Condition Interpretation
Eggs Abundant, distending the fish, no reserve fat in the abdomen with the eggs Egg impaction
Eggs Eggs are brown or tan and have coalesced into a solid, almost rubbery form. Egg impaction > Attempted egg re-absorbtion
Fat Absent Advanced inanition (starvation) or wasting
Fat Abundant almost to the exclusion of other internal organs Feeding a cheaply formulated food, excess energy and amino acids are being burned off and ingested energy is converted to adipose tissue.
Tumors Presence of any tumor is pathological and these can be fixed in Formalin and sent to a pathology lab for evaluation if the fish was fresh killed before the autopsy. We have necropsied and recovered tumors of the:KidneyOvaryTestesStomachBody wall Intestine
Intestines, body wall liver, kidney and air bladder. Blood splotches Bacterial infection which has progressed to a systemic or septic nature. Clotting disorders secondary to nutritional deficiencies.
Intestines Full of pus Bacterial infection, sometimes secondary to severe cold shock or feeding food in extremely cold water.
Intestines Ova or eggs of parasitic nematodes in the intestines Remaining fish can be dewormed with Levamisole with ease.
Liver Yellow Fatty Liver: Feeding a cheaply formulated food, excess energy and amino acids are being burned off and ingested energy is converted to adipose tissue.
Liver Pale with blood splotches Fatty liver with secondary opportunistic infection.
Gall bladder Large and green This suggests the fish was not eating in the days to weeks prior to necropsy. The gall bladders will typically empty out when the fish is eating well.
Kidney Swollen and gelatinous Renal cancer.
Kidney Swollen and bloody Bacterial infection has accessed the blood stream and has attacked the kidney.
Air sac White with bloody spattering inside or on the surface. The air sac is *extremely* sensitive to bacterial attack. Simply putting a needle in the air sac will cause overwhelming redness throughout the organ. Sometimes, overt hemorrhage of the air sac is all that you may see of a bacterial infection in the fish that has died.

this is only one example of how easy it is to learn to do things for ourselves. im sure there are other things that could be added to the above chart, but these are the things we learn through further researching.

 

[rdd1952]

I just found this while doing some research on stunting. I thought it was quite interesting and possibly applied to the acclimation issue too. The quote below is from this site. It is talking about Old Tank Symdrome and how poor water conditions can cause stunting (I have a new thread on this topic here). Could these deaths possibly be what some people chalk up to thermal shock?

"An unwary aquarist is most likely to be rudely awakened to Old Tank Syndrome when he attempts to add new fish to his existing collection. Many fish "shock out" upon introduction to this very different, harsh environment and simply perish within a few hours."

 

[toppman]

this is just turning into another thread that goes off topic because of andywg continually arguing about everything that takes his fancy, most (as in a majority andy) people on here have proven him wrong on many occasions and yet he still persists on not backing down because he scared people will think less of him.
andy i think i speak for alot of people on this forum but if you stopped arguing with people and let the occasional disagreement go and actually contributed possitively into a discussion people would maybe respect you as one of the helpful figures on this forum.
so instead of patronising people and using your words you think very few people know and you limited use of latin, just think before you type and decide are you really helping the situation or will your comment cause disruption.

 

[andywg]

this is just turning into another thread that goes off topic because of andywg continually arguing about everything that takes his fancy, most (as in a majority andy) people on here have proven him wrong on many occasions and yet he still persists on not backing down because he scared people will think less of him.
andy i think i speak for alot of people on this forum but if you stopped arguing with people and let the occasional disagreement go and actually contributed possitively into a discussion people would maybe respect you as one of the helpful figures on this forum.

*sigh*

How can I be proved wrong when I don't have a statement to start with? Direct me to one example of something I have said that has been proved wrong.

Also, the above posts show that many people reading this thread are agreeing with what I am writing, that there are large flaws in what scant evidence has been presented to support any statements. However, science is not a democracy. Just because some people think I am right or wrong is immaterial; it is what can be shown that is important here.

so instead of patronising people and using your words you think very few people know and you limited use of latin, just think before you type and decide are you really helping the situation or will your comment cause disruption.

The latin I have used is perfectly adequate here. I am interested how you seem to know that I choose to use words that few people know. Which words are these, and how do you know what I think about how many people know them?

I assume you wouldn't walk into a thread like this and make baseless allegations, so I will be pleased to see your evidence as I have requested above.

 

[toppman]

heres a fact for you andy, i have looked at alot of your posts, mainly you are arguing in some form and you use the term ad hominem, why would you do this unless its to try and seem clever at someone elses expense.
it also would seem you are proud of your argumentative nature (just look at your signiture) is this because, like a school bully, making people feel bad gives you that edge and puts you further up the hierachy or is it because your insecure and feel you have to reassure yourself, i took a course in psychology so i know what i think, just look up the works of ken rigby
also you dimiss other peoples views by saying things like "i found in a book by ?... that fish ?...) is that really sufficient evidence?

 

[ArauraDiscus]

Somehow, me pointing out that your conclusion is wrong plays into your hands and doesn't help my argument. Dunno.gif

Remind me again, exactly what is my argument?


=============================

You didn't point out that any of my conclusions are wrong. Your making this whole fantasy world in your mind become reality for you. Never did you refute anything I said. I think your a pathological dreamer. Stop making stuff up as you go along. And It doesn't play into your hands, It does indeed support my opinion because...

If you can't decide that thermic shock was the cause of a death, how the heck can you sit here and argue that it's useless to let a bag sit for 30 minutes. It would be a mute point then, because if thats how you feel then you should also feel that it doesnt matter either way, with the drop and plop method or the acclimation method, they would do the same for you. And your obviously arguing that the acclimation method is useless which proves that what you said earlier is just an example of your lack of credit to what you say. You just jump around arguing for the sake of arguing and it becomes apparent when you aren't consistent with your arguments.

O and trust me when I tell you you argue for the sake of arguing. I live in a family of annoying people who argue because they must think it's fun too. Example being my mom and my sister. I have a short rope when it comes to people like that and I can spot them from a mile away. I do argue a lot as well and I am confrontational in a less physical way, more confrontational intellectually and not agressively. Being myself willing to argue a point, I also know what it is to argue something you believe in, and how you would go about doing that. I don't see that in you, your arguments seem blunt and your defenses against opposing people seem demeaning and scattered. A sort of holier than thou approach doesn't always get you far in life. Just a suggestion. I'm done arguing this point unless I find something earth shattering.

 

[andywg]

heres a fact for you andy

A fact, eh? I am sure my first post on this topic is going to apply soon.

, i have looked at alot of your posts, mainly you are arguing in some form and you use the term ad hominem, why would you do this unless its to try and seem clever at someone elses expense.

Right, first off, the fact. A total of 5 threads exist where I have used the term hominem. Of my 4,111 posts before this one, I have contributed to over 1,000 threads. I estimate (from having typed every single one) that, at the very most, around 1,000 of my posts will be somewhat argumentative or confrontational in nature. I have the fact I typed all the posts to back up my claim of an absolute maximum of 25% argumentative posts. If you want your "fact" to stand, you will have to provide some supporting evidence.

Now, I use the term ad hominem because it means "against the person". It is used to refer to someone attacking the person they are debating/arguing with, rather than what is being said by that party. You are partaking in it here. You cannot answer the points I raised in my previous posts, so you joined this thread purely to attack me at a time when the thread had moved back to the science behind what is being discussed.

I then asked you to provide evidence of examples where I have been proved wrong, or used words which I think others don't know (and for some idea how you know what I think, though that may be dealt with below). You have provided no such examples. Therefore your attack is against me, and not my debating position, and as such the correct term is ad hominem. Until you can actually post something of substance about that which I have posted, and not me in general, I shall reply no more to you after this post.

it also would seem you are proud of your argumentative nature (just look at your signiture) is this because, like a school bully, making people feel bad gives you that edge and puts you further up the hierachy or is it because your insecure and feel you have to reassure yourself, i took a course in psychology so i know what i think, just look up the works of ken rigby

The signature is my testament to people who have posted funny things. I do not feel insecure, certainly not on TFF because this is the internet. There are only 4 other members on here that have met me, and one of them is married to me. I don't care what the rest think. However, it seems your course in psychology (which is GCSE level at best) is the only reasoning you give for understanding my thoughts on what words I think people know.

also you dimiss other peoples views by saying things like "i found in a book by ?... that fish ?...) is that really sufficient evidence?

A published reference book carries more weight than a normal member of the public's thoughts, yes. A scientific research paper which passes peer review holds even more sway. That is the way of science. The books will have bibliographies and references to where their information is sourced. Those sources usually have a good method guide to explain exactly how any conclusions were arrived at. To consider someone's unevidenced musings on the internet to be greater and more accurate than a referenced book would be nothing more than foolish.

You didn't point out that any of my conclusions are wrong.

You used the Koi club members information to "prove" that 30 minutes acclimatisation will reduce mortality and therefore it should be used. The very next sentence of your source says not to bother if the fish has been in the bag longer than 2 hours. That makes your premise somewhat weak.

Your making this whole fantasy world in your mind become reality for you. Never did you refute anything I said. I think your a pathological dreamer. Stop making stuff up as you go along. And It doesn't play into your hands, It does indeed support my opinion because...

I haven't made stuff up. You said I had been proved wrong, I asked for an example, and am still waiting.

If you can't decide that thermic shock was the cause of a death, how the heck can you sit here and argue that it's useless to let a bag sit for 30 minutes.

I never argued that, I just pointed out that the source you were relying on to say that 30 minutes acclimatisation should be used disagrees with you. My statement is that we cannot be sure at the moment, and that very little scientific evidence has been provided. Without evidence, how can you be so sure that 30 minutes is worthwhile?

It would be a mute point then, because if thats how you feel then you should also feel that it doesnt matter either way, with the drop and plop method or the acclimation method, they would do the same for you. And your obviously arguing that the acclimation method is useless which proves that what you said earlier is just an example of your lack of credit to what you say. You just jump around arguing for the sake of arguing and it becomes apparent when you aren't consistent with your arguments.

Wrong, I am applying Socratic dialectics by pointing out errors and lack of supporting evidence in statements presented. Once all the errors are removed, we have the workings of a possible answer to the "best" form of acclimatisation.

Being myself willing to argue a point, I also know what it is to argue something you believe in, and how you would go about doing that. I don't see that in you,

Good. You finally understand what I am getting at. As bignose inferred earlier, belief plays no part here, only scientific evidence. I do not believe any one form of acclimatisation is better than another. I use pretty much all three depending on what I am doing. What I have been consistently doing is pointing out the lack of evidence to support any claim that either is best.

I'm done arguing this point unless I find something earth shattering.

In other words, you still haven't actually identified what my stand was, or exactly where it was "proved wrong", yes?

Again, how convenient that you have done exactly that which I was accused of, ignoring posts which offer a conflicting opinion to your own (from members that are not me as well).

 

[toppman]

i know what ad hominem is and it means against the man not person but im sure you knew that.

you may have used the term in 5 threads but how many times per thread do you use it? i would say its excessive

you say you find it funny at being called a bully but if i was you i would take note of that and think why would they say that, im sure a look back at this thread to name but one would give you a good idea.

you seem to jump to conclusions very quickly andy gcse level at best? this is another prime case of you jumping to your un-supported opinions, it was not gcse infact.

after reading some aggresive posts on this thread alone it would seem that you beleive that by putting an emotion at the end of a sarcastic/belittling/offensive/sly etc post that would make it ok, when as you should know it doesnt, many people can say something offensive then finsish it off with a jokey laugh or smile in reality but it doesnt take away the intent that lies in what your saying, you know what you do and its only been recently that people have cottoned on to what your really like, and your afraid this will ruin your status

 

[cheesy feet]

Wow, I have just finished reading the whole thread.So many great points going around but nothing really conclusive

I'm not going to point any fingers here because I know someone will have a go at me, they always do, but I 100% agree with everything andywg has said.I find it funny how when someone gets proven rong by him, they result to ad hominem attacks, which is exactly his point to them in the first place, they can't back up their point/argument with hard evidence so they result in ad hominem attacks!...I really do like the sound of that word 8)