Tidal Pools And Water Changes

[Tommy Gun]

Hey all,

Just wanted to start this thread so that a previous discussion on tidal pools could continue without disturbing anyone else.
==============================================================

Simply reading the thread will provide the explanation of how tidal pools were introduced into the discussion. They were a way of pointing out that the salinity in nature can swing by quite large margins. This was used as a reason to not worry so much about the actual salinity too much when doing water changes.

Ahhh, the great white knight Andy comes to save the day again....but don't worry, I got that point, but....

Finally, I don't recall anyone saying we should not monitor water changes, just a post that the changes in salinity (or at least SG) are not as much a problem with mixing SW in a tank with livestock as the problems caused by undissolved salt crystals coming into direct contact with the animals in the tank.

Firstly, I don't recall saying that what not the case....I am simply saying that not only is the tidal pool comparison flawed logic, but why even bring up tidal pools if it doesn't matter anyways?

The best way of keeping animals in captivity is to try and provide conditions similar to their natural habitat.

....come on! You really want to stand behind that comment?

How common do you feel it is suggested that consistancy is not a good thing in any aquarium?

You think that the chiller and heater industry are a conspiracy?

So do you go out to the local tidal pool, check the water, and then run home quick to change your tank? You do that twice a day as well? No, you don't and here is why:

Tidal Pools​

First, let's take a look at what exactly a tidal pool is since not all are created equally:

[URL="http/ezinearticles.com/?Tidal-Pools&id=354490"]http/ezinearticles.com/?Tidal-Pools&id=354490[/URL]
^Ok, I will admit that I am not sure who the author is and a cursory internet search hasn't led me to feel as though he is a completely reliable resource, but in the hopes that he is, I think this is a pretty good description of what a tidal pool is since other definitions are very close. That being said, the third paragraph of the description seems to support what Lynden is saying....tidal pool water chemistry changes rapidly, so it would seem that if a fish is found in one, then it must be able to do that. However, please note the lack of fish within the authors list of commonly found tidal pool life.

Don't get me wrong just yet though, I realize that this doesn't mean fish cannot be found in there as well, but I will get back to that in a minute, ok?


[URL="http/www.uoregon.edu/~dwaiss/tidepools/tides.htm"]http/www.uoregon.edu/~dwaiss/tidepools/tides.htm[/URL]

^By clicking on that link above, you can clearly see that there are various levels of tidal pools. I would also like to point out that the author, Debbie Wiass, describes quite a few forms of life that are commonly found in them, which do not include fish - but more on that later. I would also like to point out that the link comes from the University of Oregon, which I hope you agree with me when I say it has at least a decent amount of credibility.

[URL="http/camel2.conncoll.edu/ccrec/greennet/...ns/34/CHP3B.HTM"]http/camel2.conncoll.edu/ccrec/greennet/...ns/34/CHP3B.HTM[/URL]

^This link, also a collegiate resource, may be more focused on the brackish and salt marshes in the Long Island (New York) area, but, please read the third sentance of the very first paragraph. Well, let me save you some time, it says:

QUOTE (R. Scott Warren @ Professor of Botany @
Paul E. Fell, Katherine Blunt Professor of Zoology,
Connecticut College)
This high and variable salinity is an important factor contributing to the relatively low species diversity[/quote]

Obviously you can see my point here...no need to elaborate, right?

Moving on, that same article points this out...

QUOTE (R. Scott Warren @ Professor of Botany @
Paul E. Fell, Katherine Blunt Professor of Zoology,
Connecticut College)
As previously explained, there are many factors, such as marsh elevation, duration of tidal flooding, salinity and soil aeration that can affect the distribution of both the plant and animal populations as one moves from the tidal creeks that dissect these wetlands to the low and high marsh and on to the upper border.[/quote]


....which, along with other research, has led me to believe that every tidal pool could be unique; which further brings me to what I feel to be a reasonable assumption that while fish may be able to survive in some pools, they cannot in other. So then, I think this might bust the notion that we have much, if any, ability to mimic this natural habitat in our aquariums.

[URL="http/www.batiquitosfoundation.org/Fish_F...20Lagoon_TF.pdf"]http/www.batiquitosfoundation.org/Fish_F...20Lagoon_TF.pdf[/URL]

^This link is actually to a Lagoon Preservation Foundation, which is located in California, but brings up what I feel are a couple great points:

#1).....

There were only a few species of fish in Batiquitos Lagoon (just five!) before it was opened to the ocean and tides at the end of 1996. High temperatures in the summer, low oxygen levels, and wide ranges of salinity did not allow the ecosystem to flourish.

^More evidence that wide swings in salinity restrict the diversity of aquatic life. But what I found A LOT more interesting was....

Batiquitos Lagoon FoundationSince the restoration of tidal action to the lagoon, the fish populations have significantly increased in numbers and diversity and more than sixty-five species have been found.

...the fact that they restored the link between the lagoon and the ocean, new species popped up. Yes, very true...this could be a result of those species finally having a method of inhabiting that area, but I also think it may suggest that the introduction of ocean water may have stabilized the water chemistry to some extent.

While I am not trying to imply all that much of anything by pointing this out, but I did notice that the vast majority of the fish depicted on that website are not common aquarium-fare.

[URL="http/ezinearticles.com/?Tidal-Pools&id=354490"]http/ezinearticles.com/?Tidal-Pools&id=354490[/URL]

Ok, lets get back to this article for a second. Again, I am not sure how reliable this resource is or isn't, however, in the third from last paragraph the author points out that some tidal pools never dry up completely which think is pretty logical since as I alluded to before, they can be found in different sizes....which is probably how fish can be found in these larger pools. However, my main point here, and within other conversations as well, is that, due to the higher water volume, changes in chemistry probably do not occur as rapidly as we might be able to create with a water change.

Tidal Pool conclusion:

While I realize that I have only scratched the surface of understanding tidal pools, I feel as though the resources above make a great case as to why the comparison between a tidal pool and an aquarium is weak at best. Additionally, since learning about the wide array of variances that can occur between one tidal pool and another, it is my humble opinion that speaking of them in generalized terms (e.g. tidal pools change dramatically) is misleading because this might not apply in every, or perhaps even most situations. Make sense?

Again, with the above info and ideas, I am trying to make the point that basing advice on captive care/husbandry on these tidal pools is weak at best. Now, on to chapter two...

 

[Lynden]

Ahhh, the great white knight Andy comes to save the day again

First of all you can take your sarcasm and shove it.

Secondly, I have read all points and there isn't a single one I doubt or don't agree with.

However, seeing as you are someone who seems so intent on not comparing apples to oranges, I couldn't help but chuckle when I realized that not a single one of your resources deals with tropical tide pools.

Those tide pools I Hawai'i I always refer to had all sorts of animals, not the least of which were fish, and many of those are a common sight in aquaria, such as the lawnmower blenny (or something that looks just like it).

 

[Tommy Gun]

Water changes...... (all general references of fish and the like are assumed to mean saltwater)

Please let me preface my following comments by saying that I am not 100% sure what might constitute TFF's competitive websites and I apologize if I use one of them below. Please feel free to edit/delete any which are not appropriate.

Let me start by stating my position here: By making a strong attempt at matching both the salinity and temperature when replacing water during a water change AND that by not doing so, there is a risk of large water chemistry changes which could be detrimental to our SW fish because they cannot adjust as quickly as it seems some people might think.

Finally, I don't recall anyone saying we should not monitor water changes, just a post that the changes in salinity (or at least SG) are not as much a problem with mixing SW in a tank with livestock as the problems caused by undissolved salt crystals coming into direct contact with the animals in the tank.

I also understand that this was the point being made....however, I don't understand why you feel that you need to point out how the conversation progressed when this is not what I am in opposition of. Where my disagreement begins is that I feel as though it is best to monitor salinity and attempt to match chemistry, including SG/Salinity, when replacing water. In fact, I am very surprised to see that someone else hasn't brought the same thing up yet seeing as how this is extremely common advice. For example:

http/faq.thekrib.com/sbegin-setup.html

^This article not only points out that saltwater fish are more sensitive to environmental changes almost immediately, but later points out what Lynden has been trying to say in that fish (and other livestock) have the ability to acclimate to a wide array of salanity....however, it also states my point - they can do it as long as the change is made slowly; which is why we should monitor it and try to match it during water changes.

http/www.reefcorner.com/Manual/salinity.htm

^In the first paragraph under the the photos on this page, the author also suggests that wide swings in salinity should be avoided and that this can lead to death (read: not always, but possible).

http/www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/ear...r/salinity.html
^ This is sort of off track a little bit because I don't know if I should believe what this web page has to say or not, but it points out that the salinity of the oceans vary little across the globe, and at any depth - although I haven't found anything on that website which discusses coastal waters yet.

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

Actually, two things just occurred to me:

1.) By not attempting to match salinity during a water change, aren't we also not matching the various trace elements that the salt mix itself provides?

2.) Lynden already agrees with me in that at least some time should be provided for a fish to be acclimated to a new aquarium so that they can adjust....so why does this principle not apply to large, rapid changes in water chemistry after the fish have already been in the same tank for a while? Do you not agree that we can change salinity rather quickly via a water change or this is at least a possibility if we are not paying enough attention?

 

[Lynden]

Who ever said that one shouldn't make any attempt to match SG or temperature? The reason no other values were brought up is that if mixing the same salt into RO water the values will always be the same.

What was stated is that it doesn't matter as much as most people think, especially temperature as any changes will be greatly blunted immedietly from the much greater volume of tank water, PLUS the already stated fact that most fish can easily tolerate some change in parameters. If they aren't, then all my animals must be "protected by a magical force" as I use cool, pure RO to top up the tank every evening...

 

[Tommy Gun]

First of all you can take your sarcasm and shove it.

Be nice now...

Secondly, I have read all points and there isn't a single one I doubt or don't agree with.

Kind of expected that.....but its probably because you dont want me to dillute your feeling of being right on 100% of your points.

However, seeing as you are someone who seems so intent on not comparing apples to oranges, I couldn't help but chuckle when I realized that not a single one of your resources deals with tropical tide pools.

Good one...however, the points I make are still valid regardless of water temp and all that. Are you saying that if it was warmer in California, that lagoon would have had more life in it despite the big salinity changes?

Those tide pools I Hawai'i I always refer to had all sorts of animals, not the least of which were fish, and many of those are a common sight in aquaria, such as the lawnmower blenny (or something that looks just like it).

Well, perhaps you should point out that you are speaking of the hawaiian variety. However, you are still missing my point...

The pools you found those fish in were relatively large and hence, are probably those I spoke of which are less apt to experience rapid changes

think: "why is it commonly suggested to start out large, versus small, in a SW tank? (Well, until recently I guess.) Anyways, the same principles that generated that advice is exactly what I am trying to describe in these pools....it takes a longer period of time for larger bodies of water to change. (Which, by the way, this might be one of the few comparisons between this hobby and nature that could make a lot of sense)

 

[Lynden]

Be nice now...

You, too.

but its probably because you dont want me to dillute your feeling of being right on 100% of your points

But it's more likely that I have more than one book on the subject. They are very interesting; makes for a good read.

Are you saying that if it was warmer in California, that lagoon would have had more life in it despite the big salinity changes

Yes, considering the tropics have a far greater diversity than cooler places.

The pools you found those fish in were relatively large and hence, are probably those I spoke of which are less apt to experience rapid changes

Not all of them were, and compared to the average tide pool they were about average, I would assume, from my reading on the subject.

think: "why is it commonly suggested to start out large, versus small, in a SW tank? (Well, until recently I guess.)

Key words: 'until now'.

 

[Tommy Gun]

Who ever said that one shouldn't make any attempt to match SG or temperature?

Apparently no one...you editing your posts again or something? I am trying to say that we should make a strong attempt at it...which is easy anyways.

The reason no other values were brought up is that if mixing the same salt into RO water the values will always be the same.

Right...but how do we measure that? Via salinity - if it doesnt match, then how can the others match?

PLUS the already stated fact that most fish can easily tolerate some change in parameters. If they aren't, then all my animals must be "protected by a magical force" as I use cool, pure RO to top up the tank every evening...

See, this is much more reasonable IMHO - they can tolerate some change in parameters...over some period of time (read: not instantly like one could do in an aquarium with ease).

Your 'majic box' is really the elongated period of time which it takes for the water to evaporate, which leads to the change and I am sure that you are not adding gallons upon gallons of RO water every night which means you are probably not making that large of a change anyways. On the other hand, I think that if you were to let half of your water to evaporate without replacining it, your fish would be in trouble anyways - especially if you suddenly filled it back up with RO. Right? In any case, I am not sure how this translates into water change salinity exactly since, in that case, you are adding both salt and water and in a much larger volume (more water = more ability for change)

 

[Lynden]

you editing your posts again or something

Firstly, I never edit my posts to cover up mistakes other than in spelling or wording. Secondly, look who's talking. Hilarious.

When I first set up my 33 gallon tank, I made several major mistakes on estimation, resulting in vast temperature and salinity flucuations. Not a single ornamental animal died from this, but they were most certainly stressed; so, it is safe to say that while they can tolerate changes and still survive, it is not something we want to continuously subject the fish too. Am I worthy enough for "Tommy Gun" to allow me to share my experiences and knowledge with those that ask for it now?

One more thing... lay off the insults unless they're tasteful.

 

[sophos9]

I've enjoyed reading these but have to admit on kinda losing the focus a little... So if I'm correct so far, the point is to Change fish parameters slowly* (* - no time definition of 'slowly')

Hang on though, did we not know this already - is this why people dont just dump fish from an unknown parameter tank into their known?

I would prefer to acclimatise and aim for a 100% rate of my earned cash than get 85% because I could not take a few minutes

 

[Musho3210]

lynden, i have to add, and i guess this applies to tommy gun as well, that you are quite hypocritical on terms of the rudeness and the so called "make yourself look big". Plus that can be said to a lot of people here yet you narrow it down to a few (or one). The arguments, or should i say debates, should be cleaner if it really is a debate, not just something to say because you think everyone else is wrong, and that applies to both.

 

[Lynden]

I don't really think it began that way; in other words, I wasn't the one that started it. And frankly, I'm not the one dishing out all the sarcasm and accusing the other guy of "editing his posts" when he actually did no such thing. I don't think I really need any more examples to defend myself on this regard, and though I admit I have been rude it has most definitely not been without provocation. Lastly, I'm still not seeing anywhere that I "tried to make myself look big" except for the possible exception of my last few posts, and even then it is slight... furthermore, even Tommy admits that I have read and considered his comments, while he did little of the same to mine. Musho, I'm sure that there isn't a single person here who doesn't appreciate your peacekeeping attempt; but in the future try to get the whole story first.

 

[andywg]

Ahhh, the great white knight Andy comes to save the day again....but don't worry, I got that point, but....

If you got it why did you (once again) make stupid posts full of sarcasm to try and make yourself appear so big and powerful? Also, I have yet to be knighted, I have not even been invited to become an Ordinary Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire. Thus I am but a lowly esquire; no more, no less.

I am simply saying that not only is the tidal pool comparison flawed logic, but why even bring up tidal pools if it doesn't matter anyways?

They were an example of how changes in salinity can, and do, occur in nature. No more, no less.

The best way of keeping animals in captivity is to try and provide conditions similar to their natural habitat.

....come on! You really want to stand behind that comment?

Yes. I believe that in an ideal world our tanks will be as close to the wild as we can get. To turn it around, are you saying we should ignore the natural habitats of the fish?

How common do you feel it is suggested that consistancy is not a good thing in any aquarium?

Seldom, but I do often read from people who spend a lot of time on reefs that they are nowhere near as consistent in temperature and salinity as many people without great experience assume. Reefs are in coastal areas of shallow depths. Most people think of seas and oceans and think of the great open depths. The two are very different.

You think that the chiller and heater industry are a conspiracy?

No. Why do you ask? I thought they were to prevent the temperature falling outside of a desired range rather than preventing any change in the temperature at all; heaters for when the tank is too cold, chillers for when it is too hot. Perhaps you know something I don't. Were I to adopt your debating technique I would probably ask you how many tide pools have chillers, but I shall refrain in this instance

So do you go out to the local tidal pool, check the water, and then run home quick to change your tank? You do that twice a day as well? No, you don't and here is why...

Actually I don't at all. I live on a temperate estuary coastline, so my local coast is a little different to that of a tropical reef coastline.

The tide pools are a useful point of the previous thread to give an example of how reef associated habitats are not a stable in temperature and salinity as the open ocean. No more, no less. No one on here said don't worry about monitoring water changes yet you stated the below:

Once you can explain how the hundreds upon thousands, if not millions upon billions of gallons of water in nature can apply directly to my extremely tiny and closed system called an aquarium, I will stop contradicting your advice that we don't have to monitor water changes and such

Lynden's original point was:

SG swings aren't as big a deal as one would think (tide pools, reefs can swing drastically)

Which is perfectly in line with the experiences of people who spend a lot of time on the reefs. No comment states that we should not monitor water changes.

It seems to me that this is you doing your standard diversion discussion tactic of focussing on tide pools rather than the main point made originally by Lynden which can be summed up as "mixing salt into the tank will not be as much a problem from temperature and salinity swings as much as the very real risk of osmotic burns from undissolved salt coming into contact with animals". The tide pools supplemented the argument that many organisms can survive changes in salinity and temperature and even provides a quote from a published article on such changes.


And finally

you editing your posts again or something?

What's that Mr Pot? You think the kettle is black?

 

[Tommy Gun]

Ok, ok. Let's be clear and fair. I didn't edit anything, I deleted it...and per Lynden's request. I have admitted my mistakes and they are frozen forever in some of your quotes for all to see.

Let me lay ALL of my points out for you guys here, ok? In reality, they are simple, but when I have put things plainly before, you always ignore me...however, I see others are reading these threads so I will sum them all up, sans sarcasm:

#1. Any one of us can find one exception to every rule, however, this exception rarely changes the rule

#2. Many, if not all, of the posts I have objected to are those which have focused on very basic, dare I say 'newbie' type questions and the reason I have objected is because information or ideas have been posted have focused on one exception, and not the 'big picture' I am trying to point out.

#3. In almost every case, I have agreed with the gist of the information and/or ideas that I have confronted someone on, but have done so because either A.) Equally important information is left out or B.) Much easier, safer, or less confusing advice is readily available.

#4. While I agree, there are many 'purists' in this hobby who will stop at nothing to ensure that we all keep our livestock in the most 'natural' setting as possible, and I respect that to no end - however, there are MANY different variables or considerations that we must make in order to keep fish in an aquarium which do not pose any problem in nature.

#5. Unlike nature, it is very easy to make very dramatic AND extremely rapid changes in water chemistry in relative terms

#6. It is true that fish can survive and thrive in a tidal pool - but only those which are large and do not experience the rapid changes that are much more possible in a tiny amount of water (again, in relative terms)

#7. I have never suggested that we shouldn't strive for some similarity between nature and our aquariums; however, I am a realist and don't feel as though downplaying the advice that has been handed down for years either.

#8. (and maybe the largest point I am trying to make in this thread) I do not see the correlation between suggesting that some minute areas in the world can experience great changes in salinity and temperature has anything to do with an aquarium and especially if the following comments basically say something along the lines of "but forget that, you shouldn't do the same" which is, as I understand it, Andy is saying Lynden did. IMHO, adding this non-pertinent tidbit of information plays no role in anything other than to confuse people and/or is a seemingly bad attempt at trying to 'brag'. And do not forget, this is by far not the only instance and continues to happen here. For example:

Seldom, but I do often read from people who spend a lot of time on reefs that they are nowhere near as consistent in temperature and salinity as many people without great experience assume. Reefs are in coastal areas of shallow depths. Most people think of seas and oceans and think of the great open depths. The two are very different.

So, you are saying that it is seldom suggested to new aquarists that we need not worry about trying to maintain a consistent level of water quality?

And my main problem with all of these discussions is that I see no real link between the salinity and/or temperature of a natural reef and my aquarium ---- keep in mind that my question clearly asks you about aquariums, not nature. This is why I feel a logical assumption can be made that you are implying that since a reef can change, we don't need to worry about these items in a small, very closed system.

NEXT:

The tide pools are a useful point of the previous thread to give an example of how reef associated habitats are not a stable in temperature and salinity as the open ocean. No more, no less. No one on here said don't worry about monitoring water changes yet you stated the below:


QUOTE
Once you can explain how the hundreds upon thousands, if not millions upon billions of gallons of water in nature can apply directly to my extremely tiny and closed system called an aquarium, I will stop contradicting your advice that we don't have to monitor water changes and such


Lynden's original point was:


QUOTE
SG swings aren't as big a deal as one would think (tide pools, reefs can swing drastically)


Which is perfectly in line with the experiences of people who spend a lot of time on the reefs. No comment states that we should not monitor water changes.

Do not forget that the original question that began the thread was this:

i was wondering whether you can mix the salt when i do a water change in the tank with live rock in there, i have just setup the tank but i think that i have received uncured live rock as the water smells a bit.

thanks

and the subsequent advice was to pre-mix saltwater outside of a tank because doing otherwise would stress the live rock and/or the hitchhikers on it. Then Musho3210 posts this:

Its the SG and parameter swings that are the biggest problems with mixing water in an established tank, the undissolved salt is a problem, true, but not the biggest problem

Which is certainly very common advice in this hobby and I cannot see how anyone could disagree with that. NOW, let me put Lynden's comments back into context for you Andy....DIRECTLY after Musho's comments, Lynden says:

SG swings aren't as big a deal as one would think (tide pools, reefs can swing drastically), but undissolved salt crystals can osmotically "burn" soft bodied creatures such as corals, nems and snails.

#1. This additional information does not pertain to aquariums, you even elude to that yourself, so what is the motivation for adding that non-applicable non-sense? The only reason I can think of is because Lynden is trying to spout out some information simply because he can, or he would like to dilute the intended information for some reason. Please tell me why else?

#2. Since it is a comment which directly follows another that pertained to the same subject, I think 99% of us would assume it to be a direct challenge to Musho's very valid point.

As a sidenote....what in the world is an osmotic 'burn'? Never heard of such a thing and cannot find any information on the world's largest source of information (the internet). In fact, there have been many confusing comments on osmosis that I have found hard to stray away from, but since the gist of the comment applies to the question specifically, I didn't want to contradict myself and confuse anyone.

NEXT:

However, seeing as you are someone who seems so intent on not comparing apples to oranges, I couldn't help but chuckle when I realized that not a single one of your resources deals with tropical tide pools.

Another great example of someone other than me trying to stray from the argument at hand. For example, does the fact that a tide pool is tropical or not change the fact that there are large swings in water chemistry? No, of course not, you have said so yourself. Now, how does that dispute the other information I provided for you that, in sources which are not related to each other and are not related to this hobby, the life that can be found in tidal pools is limited because of these wide swings? It doesn't. Yet, you find it acceptable to point out:

But it's more likely that I have more than one book on the subject. They are very interesting; makes for a good read.

Fantastic! How come you don't share any book titles or authors? Perhaps I would find them interesting as well...or would that be a problem if I read them...or do you have them? Let me guess, you don't really have them, you borrowed them and cannot remember what they are exactly, right?

There is a difference between scholars and braggarts - scholars have no problem with sharing the knowledge he/she has gained and how he/she gained it....the other can only make claims. I am sure we all realize that this forum is a place where information is exchanged daily, so go ahead, please share.

(TO BE CONTINUED....exceeded some limit)

 

[Tommy Gun]

LASTLY:

[URL="http/www.fishforums.net/content/forum/22...h-Osmosis-Etc-/"]http/www.fishforums.net/content/forum/22...h-Osmosis-Etc-/[/URL]

Throughout the entirety of this thread above, I make my case regarding the ability, or inability for some livestock (SW) to adjust quickly to wide swings of water chemistry...and guess what, not only does Lynden agree with me in the end, but backs off his original statement by stating:

I don't do this nowadays but I do still think that one hour is more than enough for any fish and almost any invertebrate, and that this could be extended to an utmost maximum of two hours when dealing with the most delicate of animals (such as Linckia starfish or a Heteractis magnifica that was shipped in water) or acclimatizing a euryhaline animal from fresh to salt. Past this it does much more harm than good (as in it does no good and some harm).

#1. One of the reasons I started this thread was due to my disagreement with Lynden providing the advice of adding a Molly to help maintain the population of beneficial bacteria on live rock...meaning, in a saltwater tank. When I pointed out that I still held my contention that a molly - perhaps one of the best examples of a euryhaline animal - is not a good choice unless it is already acclimated to saltwater, Lynden said:

Perhaps but they can be easily acclimated within an hour

and

I can tell, seeing as no matter how much evidence or experience I state to back my claims it's not good enough for you.

So, now, if I am so darn wrong, and so darn rude to point this stuff out, how come Lynden can state something like "when dealing with the most delicate of animals (such as Linckia starfish or a Heteractis magnifica that was shipped in water) or acclimatizing a euryhaline animal from fresh to salt"...which is EXACTLY what you said in that quote above!!!!

POINT #9: Please do not tell me how rude, sarcastic, or otherwise unethical I am to be posting the things I do until you stop contradicting yourself over and over and thusly, frustrating me to no end. In fact, my friend, it is you who are trying to 'save face' in many of these discussions....not me. I am NOT the one who makes all sorts of claims that can be disproven within easily found, reputable resources which I ALONE am posting in this and other threads. Finally, when making claims that you have more experience than someone, do your research first, be able to prove your research, and finally, do not expect a fond response to statements such as that.


=======================================================================
Yes, I have more points, but these are some of the more pertinent ones right now. Let me put everyone's mind at ease and clearly state that I am NOT here to insult anyone, nor try to be powerful...and I sincerely apologize for hijacking the threads I have; from now on, I will rely on 'discussion board' type threads such as this one. However, at the same time I am not going to back down to those who would like to embarrass me either. I also have a hard time understanding why some may feel as though I am trying to be 'powerful' or rude by challenging what apparently is the 'establishment' on this forum as has been duly noted by some:

it's usually me or Andy that's trying to smash beginner misconceptions

...and then andywg wonders where my sarcasm stems from?!?!?

 

[Tommy Gun]

I'm not the one dishing out all the sarcasm and accusing the other guy of "editing his posts" when he actually did no such thing.

Pfffft! Let me remind you:

Secondly, look who's talking. Hilarious.

Where did I edit my posts? Delete, yes, edit, no. Who has edited every one of his posts in this thread so far? Me?

think: "why is it commonly suggested to start out large, versus small, in a SW tank? (Well, until recently I guess.)

Key words: 'until now'.

You know as well as I that it is still common advice....however, advancements in technology and understanding are making nano-tanks an easier undertaking. Once again, you miss the point.

Not all of them were, and compared to the average tide pool they were about average, I would assume, from my reading on the subject.

Without mentioning that you, once again state you are privy to great information that will prove me wrong but fail to share it, what in your opinion constitutes 'average'? As pointed out in some of those links I provided to you, some tidal pools could be nothing more than a puddle - opening up a wide door for any 'average' title to bestowed upon them, wouldn't you think?