Have You Overlooked These Fish?

FishForums.net Pet of the Month
🐶 POTM Poll is Open! 🦎 Click here to Vote! 🐰
I said that the quote was an oversight and not an intentional misquote, and further apologized for it.

You got your wish though...all of that completely relevant info is gone and you can feel as though you are right again.
 
I said that the quote was an oversight and not an intentional misquote, and further apologized for it.

You got your wish though...all of that completely relevant info is gone and you can feel as though you are right again.

It's funny because you're so sure you're right you took down your info to try and make the other guy look like a stooge, but in the process it pretty much just rebounded. Congratulations on that little slice of fail right there.
 
I said that the quote was an oversight and not an intentional misquote, and further apologized for it.

You got your wish though...all of that completely relevant info is gone and you can feel as though you are right again.

It's funny because you're so sure you're right you took down your info to try and make the other guy look like a stooge, but in the process it pretty much just rebounded. Congratulations on that little slice of fail right there.

Congratulations on not knowing exactly what you are talking about...Lynden felt as though my comments were 'hijacking' his thread, so I removed them and will be starting my own here in the next couple days. What, if I may ask, is the failure in that? And how is anyone looking like a stooge when he was going to ask a mod to move or erase what he felt was off topic discussions? The only thing I admit is becoming too incensced with making my point, when Lynden is right, his focus is more geared towards the eating habits of the items on his list.
 
I said that the quote was an oversight and not an intentional misquote, and further apologized for it.

You got your wish though...all of that completely relevant info is gone and you can feel as though you are right again.

It's funny because you're so sure you're right you took down your info to try and make the other guy look like a stooge, but in the process it pretty much just rebounded. Congratulations on that little slice of fail right there.

Congratulations on not knowing exactly what you are talking about...Lynden felt as though my comments were 'hijacking' his thread, so I removed them and will be starting my own here in the next couple days. What, if I may ask, is the failure in that? And how is anyone looking like a stooge when he was going to ask a mod to move or erase what he felt was off topic discussions? The only thing I admit is becoming too incensced with making my point, when Lynden is right, his focus is more geared towards the eating habits of the items on his list.
The fail is in that despite having some relevant info, you went on a childish rant and intentionally misinterpreted statements earlier in the thread to support your views. As I said, you nearly had me (and probably some silent members) convinced to your view but spurned it all by first posting essentially nonsense, and then deleting your post to try and hide your mistakes.

Andy says: "Bad form"

This is why I prefer forums to have a 15 minute after post limit on when you can edit a post. No deleting posts after you realise they are silly once people reply to them.
 
Andy says: "Bad form"

Tom says: "If Andy could read the clearly stated time stamps, then he would know there were hours between when I posted and when I edited my comments." Hence, let me be the first tonight to point out that your answers and solutions to everything are not always effective (i.e. 15 minutes between posting and editing).

Tom also says: "Since I can't delete what others have quoted, my mistakes are not hidden"

Tom ALSO says: "If you are the 'expert' others claim to be on this forum (i.e. citing your scuba diving hobby as reason to disagree), then I wouldn't have to convince you of anything since you would know I am right when I said, over and over, that the fact a fish doesn't eat corals does not make them reef-safe"

Lastly, Tom says: "I have noticed what seems to be a habit of only defending the origonal poster, IMVHO, creates a double standard in some cases". For example:

Andywg said:
A reef safe fish is one which will, in all but the most extremely rare circumstances, live happily in a tank of small inverts (both motile and sessile). One cannot say that for pufferfish when generalising to the family level. Sure, if we go down to the nth degree we find exceptions, but then there are individual exceptions. Look at how my Ribbon morays feed. This is very rare and I would never recomend someone to just get ribbons as such behaviour is far from standard.
(Risky Stocking Options for your Marine and Nano tanks, Rolling the dice <--click to view the entire post)

Hence, you already agree with me and give further examples of what I was saying within the post which I quoted from that pinned thread.

My frustration was the same as yours, although I didn't realize it until later...Lynden seemed to be placing a 'reef-safe' title on fish/eels which, yes, can be kept in a reef, although they require some additional considerations - and yes, I understand that his point was not to detail those issues, but only what may or may not eat corals/inverts.

**ADDED THOUGHTS: You know, come to think of it, your last sentance in the above quotation I took from your post Andy is, IMHO, somewhat contradictory to post #29 of this thread - First you say you wouldn't recomend them for everyone since your experience is far from standard, and yet, in post #29, you say that their reputation is:
My personal experience with ribbons, and those that I have had direct contact with, appears to indicate they are far from the impossible to feed fish often painted.
Can I ask which statement you would like to adhere to?

So, in the end andy, while I respect your views, your trying to further misconstrue my actions in deleting my posts, which:

Lynden said:
I was gonna try to get Steelhealr to thin this out a bit (to keep it more on topic)

would have happened anyways, is not accurate I assure you.

first posting essentially nonsense, and then deleting your post to try and hide your mistakes.


Nonsense? I suppose your comments are too then?


My only 'fail' was that I didn't wait long enough for you to read my last post before Lynden said he wanted the thread 'trimmed' since it explained my only mistake, which was to misquote, not intentionally, his statement regarding the 8" trigger... I am sure Lynden can tell you that I apologized for it.
 
You are still completely missing the point. I actually do agree with your points; yes, lionfish can kill people; yes, razorfish can throw rocks; yes, butterflyfish can be hard to take care of; no, none of that has anything to do with this list.

The others have said it all. I'll change the opening paragraphs of this thread to spare some of your dignity, but if it you choose not to accept that gesture I might be forced to believe you aren't just playing dumb anymore.
 
As close to zero as can be, especially since lionfish venom isn't for killing, but to inflict pain for defense.
 
Tom ALSO says: "If you are the 'expert' others claim to be on this forum (i.e. citing your scuba diving hobby as reason to disagree), then I wouldn't have to convince you of anything since you would know I am right when I said, over and over, that the fact a fish doesn't eat corals does not make them reef-safe"

So, are you saying that all "experts" agree with you? A strange statement to make. And as to me being an "expert", you can't beat me with that title. The only title I ever use for myself is "bully", and that is from the humorous way in which the insult was thrown at me ages ago. I have never called myself an expert as I do not believe myself to be. I am someone who can read and remember what I have read, and (perhaps most importantly) remember where I read things to allow me to refer back to them. Expert I am not.

Lastly, Tom says: "I have noticed what seems to be a habit of only defending the origonal poster, IMVHO, creates a double standard in some cases".

Or maybe I PM'd Lynden with how the list should be arranged and pushed him to improve the list and get it pinned? It certainly gave a better list for me than intentionally misquoting and then deleting sarcastic comments would have, don't you think?

My frustration was the same as yours, although I didn't realize it until later...Lynden seemed to be placing a 'reef-safe' title on fish/eels which, yes, can be kept in a reef, although they require some additional considerations - and yes, I understand that his point was not to detail those issues, but only what may or may not eat corals/inverts.

So you acknowledge the point of the post, but are still upset that factors not desired to be covered in the thread are not included?

**ADDED THOUGHTS: You know, come to think of it, your last sentance in the above quotation I took from your post Andy is, IMHO, somewhat contradictory to post #29 of this thread - First you say you wouldn't recomend them for everyone since your experience is far from standard, and yet, in post #29, you say that their reputation is:
My personal experience with ribbons, and those that I have had direct contact with, appears to indicate they are far from the impossible to feed fish often painted.
Can I ask which statement you would like to adhere to?

As someone who is constantly learning, the latter of course. At the time I was writing before I had only seen a couple of ribbons, so had to go on "internet" experiences for a general rule. This showed my ribbons to be very rare. Having seen many more pass through the fish stores here, and seen a few people with ribbons on fora such as this I now feel that their reputation is somewhat undeserved. I still wouldn't recommend them for everyone, just like I wouldn't recommend frogfish for everyone, but they certainly are keepable and do ok. As someone so intent on the difference of 15 minutes, perhaps you can understand the difference between posting in April and October?

Nonsense? I suppose your comments are too then?

No. I do not post two huge long threads full of sarcasm which are intentionally misunderstanding the quotes just to try and get a laugh while making me look big. I argue the points. However, that is my view, your mileage may vary.


My only 'fail' was that I didn't wait long enough for you to read my last post before Lynden said he wanted the thread 'trimmed' since it explained my only mistake, which was to misquote, not intentionally, his statement regarding the 8" trigger... I am sure Lynden can tell you that I apologized for it.

Your fail was because you lost your rag when you weren't winning the argument. Rather than try a different way you resorted to sarcastic misquotes and didn't have the guts to admit publicly that some of your previous comments were wrong, but deleted it and apologised in private. I don't like that, trying to insult someone in public but then apologising in private is not good form.
 
So, are you saying that all "experts" agree with you? A strange statement to make. And as to me being an "expert", you can't beat me with that title.

No, I am not implying that all experts agree with me since I haven't talked to every single one yet. Nor that I am an expert myself. However, I am willing to bet that some hobbyists of various 'expertise' would agree with me.

What I said, or meant to say, was I have read a few posts in which the person implied that you are an 'expert' in some topics.



Or maybe I PM'd Lynden with how the list should be arranged and pushed him to improve the list and get it pinned?

I see, so you are the mastermind huh? Were you also the 'exhaustive research' as well (along with fishbase, of course)?

Before I forget, I am also wondering if you might be so kind as to where on one of fishbase's species profile does it say "this fish is reef-safe" or not? I seriously cannot find that. Granted, the website might give details on what a fish may eat, but other than the scientific information, I haven't seen anything which points out compatibility in an aquarium. And if it doesn't, I truly feel as though some of the assumptions that must be made are slightly flawed because all aspects of a fish's habits/behavior are not covered, and again, the fact that a fish doesn't eat corals or other inverts, simply isn't enough in my mind. However, I do notice that a decent assumption can be made through fishbase's information regarding the dragon wrasse as not being reef-safe since they explain how it turns over large rocks in order to find food...but until recently, that seemed to be ignored and so, I pointed it out (and of course, STD added further credence to that sentiment with his picture).

That being said, while I completely agree that fishbase is an excellent source of information of the various species such as diet and potential adult sizes, I do not feel as though it should be relied upon when seeking information regarding a certain fish and its habits/behavior/lifestyle in an aquarium. (and yes, I realize that is was probably not the sole resource used for this article, however, it is certainly has been brought up a quite a few times already; both in this thread and in other areas of the forum.)
didn't have the guts to admit publicly that some of your previous comments were wrong, but deleted it and apologized in private.

Again, my largest mistake here was to erase my posts before you had a chance to read it because I did publicly apologize for misunderstanding the gist of the 8 inch trigger statement....and will certainly be willing to do so again...but I assure you, it was nothing more than an unintentional mistake. And for the record, I don't feel as though anything else I said was hugely flawed and/or wrong.
I do not post two huge long threads full of sarcasm which are intentionally misunderstanding

Again, I did not do so intentionally and I believe I explained that I was not trying to 'rant', but only trying to 'sound' like a "newbie"....and not being all that sarcastic or upset at the time.

So you acknowledge the point of the post, but are still upset that factors not desired to be covered in the thread are not included?

Yes, I do understand the point of this thread --- however, my main argument here is that what a fish does or does not eat cannot always be used as a reason for being 'reef-safe' since these attributes are not the sole factors. For example, the rock mover wrasse may not eat coral, and could pose only a small risk to other inverts if some 'tricks' are used, however, as you can see in STD's photo, they may pose a risk to corals in a different way.

Otherwise, let me put it this way....the article answers the question "What makes these fish reef-safe", but does not delve any deeper to answer the question "What is the most probable reason for these fish to be excluded from the 'reef-safe' list". I mean, lets be realistic....there must be a reason why so many people make the blanket statement that Lynden is trying to disprove and the idea that you two are the first people in the world to realize everyone else is wrong is somewhat hard to swallow these days. Again, I am just trying to add a little bit from my own perspective because I feel that this somewhat misleading article - which seems to 'deem' certain fish as being reef-safe based upon only two, or sometimes three criteria - could lead to failure by those who don't really know what they are doing.

However, do not get me wrong here....I agree that every fish on the list can be kept in a reef tank; however, IMHO, there is a lack of sentences such as "This fish is ok in a reef tank so long as you do or do not _______ (e.g. keep snails in the tank, keep LPS corals in the same tank, secure your rock work well, etc...). In fact, the conversation surrounding lionfish is a GREAT example of what I mean in that a sentence such as "Since lionfish do not eat corals, they can be kept in a reef tank so long as there are no fish present which could fit in the lion's mouth (which is very large), and if you are aware of the fact that these fish can inflict a very painful wound if 'stung' by its fins". What, pray tell, is so wrong with suggesting that?
 
However, I am willing to bet that some hobbyists of various 'expertise' would agree with me
They probably all would as what you say is true and I never said it wasn't. What I did say is that you are missing the point which is to explain what the fish will eat in a reef setting. Most people are under the assumption that a "non-reef safe" fish will eat every invert and coral fathomable. That is not true, hence the list.

I see, so you are the mastermind huh? Were you also the 'exhaustive research' as well (along with fishbase, of course)?
Andy suggested writing this list and he also reminded me that diodonts are not puffers, plus suggesting adding several other points. By and large he is not the "mastermind" and while Andy is vastly more knowledgeable than most people on this topic I am insulted that you would credit me with so little.

Granted, the website might give details on what a fish may eat
...which is exactly what I needed to write this list. Duh?

the fact that a fish doesn't eat corals or other inverts, simply isn't enough in my mind
You only came up with a couple of minor examples as grounds to rewrite the list entirely. That doesn't fly with me.

I realize that is was probably not the sole resource used for this article, however, it is certainly has been brought up a quite a few times already; both in this thread and in other areas of the forum
I also read wetwebmedia and aquahobby, plus all the other "regulars".

for the record, I don't feel as though anything else I said was hugely flawed and/or wrong
Your only continuing flaw is that you still don't realize the point of this list.

Again, I did not do so intentionally and I believe I explained that I was not trying to 'rant', but only trying to 'sound' like a "newbie"....and not being all that sarcastic or upset at the time.
I think anyone who read your replies could beg to differ.

Yes, I do understand the point of this thread
And yet you still ignore it.

the rock mover wrasse may not eat coral, and could pose only a small risk to other inverts if some 'tricks' are used, however, as you can see in STD's photo, they may pose a risk to corals in a different way
Which is why I later edited the post and alluded to them moving rocks and to not keep them with sand-living corals. I acknowledged your point to the fullest but yet this remains your only real example as grounds to rewrite this entire list. I also find it remarkable that for someone who claims to know so much about this subject that you failed to notice that Coris wrasses also burrow and can topple rock structures; plus other subtle points about various other fish in the list.
 
the article answers the question "What makes these fish reef-safe"
No it doesn't. It answers "what inverts will these fish eat in aquaria?".

there must be a reason why so many people make the blanket statement that Lynden is trying to disprove and the idea that you two are the first people in the world to realize everyone else is wrong is somewhat hard to swallow these days
Because other fish in the family will indeed eat corals or are aggressive. Take the titan and pinktailed triggers, for example. Titan Triggers are large fish that exclude almost nothing from their menu but pinktailed triggers eat nothing but plankton. On the other side of the scale I see that all damsels are "reef safe" but yet my domino picks at xenia and has done a great deal of damage, and the clownfish used to pick at my largest sarcophyton. By contrast, my puffer - a "non reef safe" fish - has never hurt a fly and the trigger has likewise only killed one small snail (I assume) and even then being a benthic feeder I expected him to do so.

could lead to failure by those who don't really know what they are doing.
Which is why in my latest edit I stressed extra research, even though I find this article to be more than adequate for a person with minimal knowledge.

"Since lionfish do not eat corals, they can be kept in a reef tank so long as there are no fish present which could fit in the lion's mouth (which is very large), and if you are aware of the fact that these fish can inflict a very painful wound if 'stung' by its fins". What, pray tell, is so wrong with suggesting that?
Because that's damn near what I said in the first place.
 
So, are you saying that all "experts" agree with you? A strange statement to make. And as to me being an "expert", you can't beat me with that title.

No, I am not implying that all experts agree with me since I haven't talked to every single one yet. Nor that I am an expert myself. However, I am willing to bet that some hobbyists of various 'expertise' would agree with me.

But where have I said the opposite?

What I said, or meant to say, was I have read a few posts in which the person implied that you are an 'expert' in some topics.

That is them, not me. I go out of my way to make people purely judge my posts on what the post contains, not just on the fact it was written by me. I have never professed to be an expert, and never will.

I see, so you are the mastermind huh? Were you also the 'exhaustive research' as well (along with fishbase, of course)?

Before I forget, I am also wondering if you might be so kind as to where on one of fishbase's species profile does it say "this fish is reef-safe" or not? I seriously cannot find that. Granted, the website might give details on what a fish may eat, but other than the scientific information, I haven't seen anything which points out compatibility in an aquarium.

I am fairly sure that fishbase was used to point out that Drs Foster and Smith (who have no doctors in their aquatic section) have got maximum sizes wrong, a fact that can be very easily checked through a number of sources and as such one should be wary of taking their advice as truly competent.

That being said, while I completely agree that fishbase is an excellent source of information of the various species such as diet and potential adult sizes, I do not feel as though it should be relied upon when seeking information regarding a certain fish and its habits/behavior/lifestyle in an aquarium. (and yes, I realize that is was probably not the sole resource used for this article, however, it is certainly has been brought up a quite a few times already; both in this thread and in other areas of the forum.)

Where exactly has the above happened? I can't recall anyone anywhere stating that a fish is reef safe because fishbase says it is. I only ever use it for range and size.

It seems to me you got greatly upset because people weren't warned that a dragon wrasse can rearrange tank furniture and have started out on this quest. The articles stated aim is diet, not aggression, not tendency to move the décor around, not a propensity to jump over weirs and end up in weirs.
 
Ok...this is my last comment in this thread because this is getting ridiculous. I do hand it to you all though, you make great arguments and when I try to agree with you, you are quick to turn my words around on me. That being said:

I see that you have edited the beginning of your article and now the points that I have been trying to make have been addressed. Thank you for taking the time to listen to me.

Let me get back to square one...the comments that caught my attention on the day I first replied to this thread, and what has motivated me to continue being pummeled by you all:

#1)
Lynden said:
Many fishes that are commonly thought as undesirable for a reef do deserve a second
look. If ever you are looking at a fish on Live Aquaria or what ever, do not take their word for it;
look in a scientific database such as Fishbase. You will soon begin to pity the huge amount of
hobbyists who do not!

#2)
Lynden said:
Lastly, I don't give a flying 'F' about how many "initials" they have - if they're wrong, they're wrong. Period
(If I remember correctly, I was trying to make a point about Drs. Foster and Smith having more initials behind their names than Lynden has in his first name, an exaggeration, of course)

Let me preface any further comments by stating that I agree with you that your article does focus on what these fish will eat - which is helpful because then if you want to keep one in a reef, you simply need to avoid the other - I have never had a single problem with that and don't believe I have ever said you were wrong with that information.

HOWEVER (and this is the BIG however that I have been trying to get at all along)....to say that Drs. Foster and Smith, or any other on line LFS is flat wrong for stating that the fish on your list are not reef-safe is not something your article proves. Like I said, you have informed us as to what a fish will or will not eat in a reef (so we don't keep them together), but that does not mean there are any other reasons for why this 'blanket statement' has been created. So, in conclusion, those statements made are unjust and misleading in my opinion because you do not prove them entirely wrong (in fact, in many cases live aquaria.com will at least hint at the reason for them not being reef-safe, and in others, do point out that they can be kept in a reef 'with caution') and to blatantly state that no one should trust their advice could lead to a few disasters (e.g. the dragon wrasse won't eat my coral, but it sure did injure and/or kill some by turning the rock they are attached to over, which crushed them). Hence, take the "they are wrong" comments out and your article will truly be right on track - and if not, then yes, I feel that you should prove them wrong in every aspect before saying that. After all, most of these websites don't say "reef-safe: no (eats all inverts/corals)", but rather, simply say "reef-safe: no" or "reef-safe: with caution".

And for the record Lynden, I only 'highlighted' Andy's comments because I knew it would get a rise out of you, and yes, I realize that this is solely your effort. For the rest of the comments, my intention has never been to debate any of those areas, however, I will simply state that what you might refer to as me 'being upset' is nothing more than a passion to see that others are not as mislead as I once was, and not by you two, but in general.
 

Most reactions

trending

Staff online

Back
Top