Practical Fish Keeping Forum

[Butch]

Well can't we suggest that kid about replace the tankbusters for smaller species? Like Oscar, wild angelfish, pike livebearers, L numbers plecos, piranhas, corydoras, goodeids, red eyes blood swordtails, blood parrots, flowerhorn, other cichlids or even goldfish? Im sure there are smaller species of catfish, just don't know any. There are lots of options for having different fish, there's lots of species that suited for his tanks. What's wrong with them?

He doesn't seems like he had bad case of autism, just a foolish teen with bad attutide. im actually deaf and he do know about the species he owned, have a job, able type on the computer, has email address and deal with the monster fishes...so he can do anything that normal person do. So lets us treat him like normal person. His autism are not gonna work on me. Im sorry if I sounds like harsh.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

I appreciate your difficulties, but this is also a family forum, and yet the mods do seem to manage keeping members of all ages on the boards without quite a such a heavy handed approach as to what posters may or may not say. I have been on here for 3 years now and have always had a very strong feeling that this is "our" forum, that in a sense it belongs to all of us equally. You earn respect not through being a mod, but through displaying expertise.

The language used by the PFK mods who have explained their rationale on this thread sounds more like that of headteachers (the mods) managing children (members). I wouldn't want to join a forum with that attitude.

As for the more specific question of the actual fishkeeper, it is admittedly a difficult one, but many fishkeepers will still find the moral stance hard to accept. If it were a dog keeping forum, would one take the same approach?

What you have to accept is that new members join forums specifically to learn from older members. If somebody keeps large fish in small tanks and posts about them regularly, but noone is seen to challenge it, then others will obviously try to do the same thing. And particularly if the person is encouraged to write an article. I mean really, how would that work? Would you be prepared to say, Bruce has this condition and that is why he keeps fish in the wrong way? Wouldn't that be even more cruel to the poor lad? And if you don't, but just let him write the article, then you are endorsing the practice and encouraging others to do the same.

Speaking as a parent, and the parent of a disabled child, I would be very unhappy to see the my child's disability be used in this way.

I agree . I think you also raise a lot of good points.


From what i have gathered so far, the only reason why the situation was dealt in the way it was is because the kid apparently has autism. As not to upset him, the PFK mods seem to have made exceptions for him, he gets treated differently from the rest (this is pretty obvious in the thread in question); from his posts he certainly doesn't seem to have any bad/severe form of autism, he comes across as intelligent and his posts are legible etc- one would certainly not realize simply from reading this guys posts in his thread that he has autism.
Was CFC aware this kid had autism when he posted on the kids thread? Would this kid not having autism made CFC's posts more acceptable from the PFK mods point of view? If i said i had autism on PFK, would that mean i would get treated differently as well?

It seems that the mods of PFK are trying to be politically correct, they're trying to protect those they see as vulnerable, but in doing so in the way they have done in this situation they have IMHO moderated unfairly. CFC did not act in an aggressive/offensive manner, he was merely pointing out things that a lot of people would probably do in such a situation- people shouldn't be expected to know everyone really well on a forum, yet the PFK mods seemed to expect CFC (a new member on their forum) to know the whole history behind this autistic kid.

They seem to think that its good to prevent ordinary members from saying anything negative about this kids fishkeeping methods, because he's autistic. What if this kid was keeping rabbits in box's and saying he'll rehome the animals when they're obviously too big for the boxes? What if the kid was flaunting his rabbits in boxes, just buying more and more and posting every new purchase on a forum? Is this partly a case of "just let the disabled kid do what he wants to the fish, he's only being mildly cruel/irresponsible to them (instead of really cruel), he's not treating the fish as badly as he possibly could and he's autistic too so its best not to upset him, so lets just ignore the whole situation with him and protect him instead against criticisms about his fishkeeping methods, because its going to be really difficult to get anything through to him about his ways otherwise"? Should the mods just write "Autistic member" under his name to make things easier for everyone ?

I think the thing that gets most people in this situation is the fact that the PFK mods seem to be excusing this members fishkeeping methods and ways and protecting him against criticisms from other ordinary members purely because the kid is Autistic. This is where i think the PFK mods have gone wrong in this situation, as well as their seemingly classroom approach to moderating.

He doesn't seems like he had bad case of autism, just a foolish teen with bad attutide. im actually deaf and he do know about the species he owned, have a job, able type on the computer, has email address and deal with the monster fishes...so he can do anything that normal person do. So lets us treat him like normal person. His autism are not gonna work on me. Im sorry if I sounds like harsh.

I agree

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

This , in my view has been building for a while. When Bruce first started posting on PFK he came in for a bit of flak. Several people myself included talked to him about his fishkeeping and how some fish were not suitable for his tanks (or the trade in some cases) , how he was clearly overstocked in certain tanks and his practice of buying / loaning fish and returning or swapping them , growing small specimens on for eventual return to the LFS and display. Eventually it was made known to us regarding his medical conditions. I myself suggested Bruce write an article explaining his condition and how it effects his lifestyle and why he keeps fish the way and the types he does. At no point did I or any of the other Moderators or Admin condone what he keeps or the way he keeps them nor do we make excuses for his medical conditions or try to shield him from crticism . As Bob has said , it was discussed periodically and whilst we made some gestures to help guide and educate 'WE' are not responsible for his fishkeeping and it is not up to us to keep reminding him or anyone else for that matter on how to keep his fish. The original article Bruce wrote helped a number of people understand his stance on fishkeeping (right or wrong).

You say you're not excusing or condoning his fishkeeping methods because he is autistic, but then you also say that you yourself say that you used to criticize his fishkeeping methods until you found out that he was autistic. So in reality you are excusing his behavior, because finding how that he has autism has changed the way you treat him and the issue of his fishkeeping methods drastically. You are trying to shield him from criticisms because CFC was told not to criticize this kids fishkeeping methods because he was autistic. You say its not up to you or others to keep reminding the kid on the issues concerning the way he keeps his fish, yet it seems to me you are really saying that people shouldn't criticize this kid- if you are really not excusing/conding/protecting etc this kid because he is autistic, then why did you reprimand CFC in the thread he participated in with this kid? Because he was aggressive/offensive or spread misinformed information etc? Where??

 

[dulce]

I dont wish to get involved in this dispute i agree it was unfair to restrict CFC's access when he tactfully attempted to give some advice. Whatever the issues i dont think the matter of autism and someones abilities should be banded around, excused/not excused there are many valid points being made but having close family members with autism if i saw this thread about him, whatever the situation i would be furious judgement was being passed on him by people who did not know him . CFC did the right thing in his intitial reaction to the thread and keeping the fish issue should be treated no different to anyone else, whatever his level of autism, whether people wish to excuse it etc should not be up for a dispute.

 

[cheesy feet]

This has been fun
...Those taunting kids were annoying.

 

[andywg]

I can't be bothered to read this whole thread,

Nothing like availing oneself of all the facts before commenting

Back On Topic

The attempts by the mods on PFK seem fairly poor. It seems that he is ok because he claims he will build a tropical pond (oh how many times have we heard that?) and also because he is giving better than some people give. That's like saying that keeping an oscar in a 20 gallon is ok, because others put them in 10 gallon tanks. The argument just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

I still believe the PFK mods were a little riled at the fact that someone with not bad knowledge said something they know fully well they should be saying every time this kid posts. To make oit worse, when others tries to say CFC would be jealous of the kid's tanks CFC pwn3d the lot with his tank list.

I can only assume that PFK forum (like the magazine) just isn't aimed at serious fish keepers.

 

[screamingdonkey]

Edit: Took my earlier post out as after re-reading it this morning I thought it didn't come across the way I wanted it to & it wasn't really adding much to the debate - too much wine last night and I was waffling on a bit!!!!

 

[moll]

OK I'm worries here is a 15 year old child who has a very expensive hobby it is obviously been funded by his parents so why the hell are they not taking a interest and making sure their money is being spent correctly they have internet access their son can use the net and they must pay for it so they should be asking questions and checking what is been kept in their home as I'm sure as the tax payer they will be the ones fined for the illegal fish ignorance is no defence in English law.

Also why are the shop selling fish to a under 16 and ones needing such specialist care and even if his parents go with him to enable him to buy why arn't they making sure what they are getting is suitable.

Just another point in my child was planning on building a indoor pond I'd like a say (I have put my foot down when my 5 year old wanted to keep a elephant in the back yard) also what happens when this 15 year old leaves home in a few years will they still have space. I keep trying to remind students off to uni about fish will parents do water changes can they take them etc.

I think you are all pointing a lot of blame at the forum and at the child but where are the parents?

 

[Darkstar]

Nothing like availing oneself of all the facts before commenting

Lol, nothing like being openly honest either. I don't think I need to re-read variations of the same facts post after post, unless you have further facts which you think change the situation?
However, if everyone was availing themselves to all the facts, as you apparently are then wouldn't a basic requirement of that be talking to the individual in question before making comments. Rather than just relying on hearsay and other peoples opinion of what they believe the situation to be, which I imagine constitutes about 98% of this thread?

The kid's supposedly autistic and keeps fish in apparently unsuitable conditions, the two are not related and neither issue should be used to excuse the other... so I still fail to see why I need to cloud the situation with other supposed facts which aren't imo, relevant. Keep the problem simple and then the answer is invariably simple also.

 

[andywg]

Nothing like availing oneself of all the facts before commenting

Lol, nothing like being openly honest either. I don't think I need to re-read variations of the same facts post after post, unless you have further facts which you think change the situation?
However, if everyone was availing themselves to all the facts, as you apparently are then wouldn't a basic requirement of that be talking to the individual in question before making comments. Rather than just relying on hearsay and other peoples opinion of what they believe the situation to be, which I imagine constitutes about 98% of this thread?

The kid's supposedly autistic and keeps fish in apparently unsuitable conditions, the two are not related and neither issue should be used to excuse the other... so I still fail to see why I need to cloud the situation with other supposed facts which aren't imo, relevant. Keep the problem simple and then the answer is invariably simple also.

If you really can't be bothered to read the other posts, what makes you think anyone else will want to read yours?

All you end up doing is replying to the situation as it was some time ago.

 

[Jarcave]

I think you are all pointing a lot of blame at the forum and at the child but where are the parents?

On the PFK forum explaining the whole issue. In my opinion, the shop is responsible. They now about the lad, they know about his tanks and his abilities. But they supply him with the fish. You can't expect his parents to understnd all the complexities of housing a large collection of tropicals. The shop has to take responsibility. Before you all argue, kids are the responsibility of their parents, do you really expect his mum to know how big the pair of his adonis plecs could get?

 

[moll]

I think you are all pointing a lot of blame at the forum and at the child but where are the parents?

On the PFK forum explaining the whole issue. In my opinion, the shop is responsible. They now about the lad, they know about his tanks and his abilities. But they supply him with the fish. You can't expect his parents to understnd all the complexities of housing a large collection of tropicals. The shop has to take responsibility. Before you all argue, kids are the responsibility of their parents, do you really expect his mum to know how big the pair of his adonis plecs could get?

No I would not expect them to know but as I posted it is their duty to find out if they allow them in to their home no court would accept that the boy is fully responsible he is not the home owner he does not pay the bills he wants these pets they allow him to bring them into their house they should be asking questions of their son, the pet shop and doing their own research because some of the responsibility has to go to them. If you say its not in anyway their fault them you are saying that parents have no responsibility for 15 year olds, would you question parents who let their 15 year olds throw stones at cats and dogs? They are funding his hobby.

 

[Jarcave]

them to know but as I posted it is their duty to find out if they allow them in to their home no court would accept that the boy is fully responsible he is not the home owner he does not pay the bills he wants these pets they allow him to bring them into their house they should be asking questions of their son, the pet shop and doing their own research because some of the responsibility has to go to them. If you say its not in anyway their fault them you are saying that parents have no responsibility for 15 year olds, would you question parents who let their 15 year olds throw stones at cats and dogs? They are funding his hobby.

Of course kids are the responsibility of their parents. You'll be please to know that the young lads father has been alerted to some of the threads and if you read the whole story you'll be happy to know there is a long term plan. Some of the potentialy huge fish were juveniles and were only being housed temporarily.

I still believe that the shop where he works is responsible more so than his parents in any case. I used to keep marines when i was 13. My parents had no idea what sg was. So I suppose I had highly irresponsible parents to...

 

[CFC]

I'm going to close this thread now as it has run its course and adding more posts is serving no further purpose.