You then go into arguing with me about temps that corals bleach at. You quote stuff and tear it apart. I don't bight because it wasn't something I said. You quoted directly from Walt's post I cut & pasted where you wanted proof of what he said. Besides being funny in itself that to me also meant you agreed with what I had already previously said "I think Walt's a great guy and all but have kind of lost some faith on relying on his info. I remember back when he insisted Fiji is pretty much in the 70s all year round with an occasional rise into the 80s (not talking about the 2000 or similar bleaching events). This goes directly against the reef temp graphs that Bomber (believe it was him) posted (same one I posted above)." I was wrong it wasn't Bomber who uploaded that chart which was my bad. But it didn't matter though who uploaded the data.
"You we not correcting any error who do you think you are fooling."
I can go through the whole damn thread like this if you like? You're not fooling anyone here Boomer with your nonsense. Get over yourself, let it go.
You're talking here like you are responsible for the equazions in question. Where do I see the name "Boomer" in "Buch-Park"??? Could it be that you have nothing to do with them and you use them like everyone else???
Again the "Buch-Park" not boomer formulas didn't have anything to do with anything. You threw that in as spin control when you realized you f-ed up the Dick & Jane formula to cloud the issue.
Do yourself a favor and search through RC with my username and see how many posts I've got in the chemistry forum. Not to damn many and surely under 1% of my posts. I don't go to RC for the chemistry forums as I don't need to. Basically the only time I even see anything there is if a thread catches my eye on the daily what's new list and that's rare. I'm much more into the equipment and threads dealing with experimentation trying to learn as see what others are doing (what works and doesn't) and sharing information on what I've found to work and not work. Basically further the experimentation process.
All the people here on the board know how dumb I am and how little I know about aquariums. I gotta get myself enrolled in Boomers Aquariums for Dummy's class to learn how to do 95% water changes. Yea I know that wasn't called for but it's kind of funny don't you think?
You're still not getting it. You were trying to set me up but instead I tipped the tables on you. I didn't feel like arguing with you so I let you argue with experts instead to only disprove yourself and show you wanted to argue about anything and everything which of course you have.
OK I was wrong about the Pinpoint monitor working in salt water BIG DEAL. I did say I called them and had checked with them 2 times because I didn't think it was correct.
BTW, just so you know, I contacted them and they say it will work in salt water but requires a different reference solution which they are sending me. I actually think I'm ok anyway because I wasn't using their reference solution anyway. So in a way I wasn't wrong about the pinpoint either as it can be used in SW just needing a different solution.
While I'm not stupid and saw what you were up to (other's here know this as fact because I had PMed them saying what you were doing) I was actually mortified that anyone would stupe so low to do such a thing. Doesn't say much about character in my book. I also think it was a poor/stupid thing on the part of who ever put you up to it. But that's just my opinion.
Is it a precedent being set here? P*ss off certain people in the club and a hired thug will TRY and comes after you?
Carlo
"You we not correcting any error who do you think you are fooling."
I can go through the whole damn thread like this if you like? You're not fooling anyone here Boomer with your nonsense. Get over yourself, let it go.
First of all, you have no idea of my knowledge. You don't know me from Adam. Regardless, it's a pretty stupid thing to even say.
You're talking here like you are responsible for the equazions in question. Where do I see the name "Boomer" in "Buch-Park"??? Could it be that you have nothing to do with them and you use them like everyone else???
Again the "Buch-Park" not boomer formulas didn't have anything to do with anything. You threw that in as spin control when you realized you f-ed up the Dick & Jane formula to cloud the issue.
Do yourself a favor and search through RC with my username and see how many posts I've got in the chemistry forum. Not to damn many and surely under 1% of my posts. I don't go to RC for the chemistry forums as I don't need to. Basically the only time I even see anything there is if a thread catches my eye on the daily what's new list and that's rare. I'm much more into the equipment and threads dealing with experimentation trying to learn as see what others are doing (what works and doesn't) and sharing information on what I've found to work and not work. Basically further the experimentation process.
You didn't prove anything boomer. All you did was interpret things differently but when randy says keeping calcium at 400-450 MAY help then it's kind of hard to interpret that differently for the average person. Remember I never said to do this in the first place.
Yep, I'm a big old dummy and don't know a darn thing.
All the people here on the board know how dumb I am and how little I know about aquariums. I gotta get myself enrolled in Boomers Aquariums for Dummy's class to learn how to do 95% water changes. Yea I know that wasn't called for but it's kind of funny don't you think?You're still not getting it. You were trying to set me up but instead I tipped the tables on you. I didn't feel like arguing with you so I let you argue with experts instead to only disprove yourself and show you wanted to argue about anything and everything which of course you have.
No not at all. If it's wrong, it's wrong. But when I mention Randy has said blah blah and you argue with that then it's different. That is what that was about, I mentioned what Randy said not that it was my opinion. You're missing this. And the simple fact of the matter is that having higher calcium in lower pH environments MAY be beneficial. You may think it's not beneficial while others may think it is. You are sharing your OPINION not FACT on the matter.
Again go back and read the thread.
I don't need to. I'm not compelled to prove he is wrong. I look at the NOAA charts for 7 years of data and can see it with my own eyes. Every other data set I've looked at says the same thing Fiji reefs don't run at mid 70s most of the year, actually never. Why do I need to prove to him he's wrong? Maybe, by god it was only a typo on his part. But the point is I can simply take information he says and do backup research on it and see if it makes sense to me. Same as I do anyone else when I'm in doubt. He has just said things at times that are of equal "out of this world" values that I take what he says with a grain of salt, but investigate non the less.
First you shouldn't speak for someone else but only for yourself. Secondly Randy could just as well come in here and say that running calcium at higher levels like 400-450 MAY (get that word boomer) MAY MAY MAY help. Just as he has written in his articles and in posts to people on RC.
OK I was wrong about the Pinpoint monitor working in salt water BIG DEAL. I did say I called them and had checked with them 2 times because I didn't think it was correct.
BTW, just so you know, I contacted them and they say it will work in salt water but requires a different reference solution which they are sending me. I actually think I'm ok anyway because I wasn't using their reference solution anyway. So in a way I wasn't wrong about the pinpoint either as it can be used in SW just needing a different solution.
No clue what you are referring to. Please elaborate if you like.
Point them out? With what wrong formulas, Omega values, data sets, you own opinion?
Not sure where you are getting at here. The 6 you posted and I corrected with 4.2 or the fact that is only a guess at a precipitation event anyway? Either way it had nothing to do with anything.
If you had read the few posts before this one you'd have seen I was already chilling. But then you had to go and post the "in your face" post which simply p*issed me off so I responded in kind.
While I'm not stupid and saw what you were up to (other's here know this as fact because I had PMed them saying what you were doing) I was actually mortified that anyone would stupe so low to do such a thing. Doesn't say much about character in my book. I also think it was a poor/stupid thing on the part of who ever put you up to it. But that's just my opinion.
Is it a precedent being set here? P*ss off certain people in the club and a hired thug will TRY and comes after you?
Carlo
