- Status
I think it was a crime, and now everyone is hiding and won't talk, if EB had document that he feels he can share with a few, Why not all of us, I't easy to say, I have read them but can't post them, If they clears his or any other person of wrong doing post them.
sihaya":djlixag6 said:vitz":djlixag6 said:
To start a discussion that will turn up (and is turning up) more information. Like the saying goes, sometimes you "need money to make money." The same goes for information sometimes.
dragonlyds- sent you a PM (but totally unrelated to this thread)
to what end, exactly ?
sihaya":26mmfby4 said:
why do you think ANY explanation or accounting of these events from the very beginning are any of the hobby community's business?
are you a 'self-appointed policeman' for the hobby ?
why do you quote 'research project' ?
where do you get the weight tally from ?
since you're forcing me to dig it out from you piece by piece through your intentional evasiveness from answering the preceding two questions of mine completely, but rather piecemeal, i'll ask you one final question..
once you have all of the correct info and chain of events-if it turns out that you foolishly slandered mr. borneman via implications and inuendo, will you post a public apology and make restitution (whatever it may be ) to him for your efforts ?
vitz":1wj6wtsg said:
If for no other reason, because there was both a RK article and an IMAC lecture about it.
Nope
You tell me. Should I not have?
The RK, the IMAC lecture, the documents, etc...
Hmm... well, if I have stated anything that turns out to be absolutely contrary to fact, then yes, I would apology. However, I have no reason to think that's the case or will ever prove to be the case.
Sihaya I have a question as a hobbiest.
Why should I as a hobbiest care more about this than say a transhipped order of corals and fish being left on a dock to die because the recipient couldn't get there to pick them up? Why should I care more about this than say illegal collection and importation of Acans? I am being serious here, I care about the hobby and things that effect the hobby. Does the name recognition of calling out a prominent member of the reef community not play into this at all? Whether he did anything or not and irregardless of who is involved I am curious what your motives are for championing this particular cause.
Also forgive me for my ignorance because I am just a hobbiest and am completely out of the loop on this cloak and dagger inside info stuff but I have to ask who are you? what role do you play in this? and why are you so passionate about this one incident? I am sorry if I seem a bit cynical but I guess I just don't buy the concerned hobbiest angle, there seems to be more to it.
Why should I as a hobbiest care more about this than say a transhipped order of corals and fish being left on a dock to die because the recipient couldn't get there to pick them up? Why should I care more about this than say illegal collection and importation of Acans? I am being serious here, I care about the hobby and things that effect the hobby. Does the name recognition of calling out a prominent member of the reef community not play into this at all? Whether he did anything or not and irregardless of who is involved I am curious what your motives are for championing this particular cause.
Also forgive me for my ignorance because I am just a hobbiest and am completely out of the loop on this cloak and dagger inside info stuff but I have to ask who are you? what role do you play in this? and why are you so passionate about this one incident? I am sorry if I seem a bit cynical but I guess I just don't buy the concerned hobbiest angle, there seems to be more to it.
When you reach the point of not being able to garner every detail, then what? You get to just walk away and say "oh well, I tried" and bask in your 15 minutes, while Eric's name is left dripping in your mud. How do you take back accusations and assumptions made from fragmented information? You can't.
Chuck
Chuck
sihaya":st2hody0 said:
why haven't you first contacted noaa, etc., for ALL of the relevant information before spamming numerous hobby boards with only a teeny piece of the puzzle with baseless assumptive inuendo ?
sorry, not good enough-what other reason(s) do you have?
are you in the habit of doing things like this simply because you don't think the case will prove otherwise ? you're gonna be a VERY crappy lawyer, if you rush so foolhardedly into battle thusly
no, you tell me, i asked you first, and you're being evasive by answering a question with a question-i'll repeat:
why did you place 'research project' in quotation marks ?
i've had some experience with your postings on the MD bb, when i was among the moderator staff during my stint there, and was privy to some of the internal 'discussions' regarding your behavior and posts there-you were, and are, in my opinion,a hotheaded loose cannon with a personal agenda, using incomplete information to draw and lead others into conclusive opinion on a matter that YOU aren't fully informed about.
this is a perfect case of shooting the messenger.
i think that was mentioned in like the very first post.
maybe this information could be released so other hobbyists
can learn from it. so they could know not what to do.
isn't that as valueable to know as what to do right?
i think we learn more from failure. so much more eh?
i think that was mentioned in like the very first post.
maybe this information could be released so other hobbyists
can learn from it. so they could know not what to do.
isn't that as valueable to know as what to do right?
i think we learn more from failure. so much more eh?
Okay Sarah, I have a few questions for you.
You state that you are but a mere messenger and to not shoot you for being as such. But with it being obvious that you are clearly more than just a messenger since you are the one that gathered up fragmented information and presented it as a case calling it the "Borneman" corals, thus implying or tainting any readers perception by the title alone. and taken with your own statement of your motivation being only of concern for the corals in question. You yourself invited motivational questions by doing so. And being told of your history involving Eric (as well as others), that also becomes a GLARING reason to ponder the motivations. But instead of stating right up front all of the possible motive issues that were bound to be called into question, you chose to hide such things, or at least, not volunteer them yourself, had you done so, then you may have had a bit of credibility, by not doing so, and having others find out the hard way, you lose all credibility and respect. So why not now, get it all out into the open and fess up? You can not say that this is irrelevant to the topic because it is very relevant. You just want to keep everyones attention elsewhere and not have it turn around and bite you back. If you actualy care about being taken seriously, then spill it. If not, then all you have done and continue to do is fuel a discussion based on bits and pieces that continue to spark assumptions and further baseless accusations against others.
Since I do not have the hard cold evidence to force your hand at this time, I have to ask that you lay your cards out there and let everyone form their OWN honest opinions of what you have presented and just as importantly, as to why you have made such a presentation. You and I both know that "save the corals" is a cop out. Without clarity of ALL the facts and motivations, your efforts are and have been highly suspect at best.
Chuck
You state that you are but a mere messenger and to not shoot you for being as such. But with it being obvious that you are clearly more than just a messenger since you are the one that gathered up fragmented information and presented it as a case calling it the "Borneman" corals, thus implying or tainting any readers perception by the title alone. and taken with your own statement of your motivation being only of concern for the corals in question. You yourself invited motivational questions by doing so. And being told of your history involving Eric (as well as others), that also becomes a GLARING reason to ponder the motivations. But instead of stating right up front all of the possible motive issues that were bound to be called into question, you chose to hide such things, or at least, not volunteer them yourself, had you done so, then you may have had a bit of credibility, by not doing so, and having others find out the hard way, you lose all credibility and respect. So why not now, get it all out into the open and fess up? You can not say that this is irrelevant to the topic because it is very relevant. You just want to keep everyones attention elsewhere and not have it turn around and bite you back. If you actualy care about being taken seriously, then spill it. If not, then all you have done and continue to do is fuel a discussion based on bits and pieces that continue to spark assumptions and further baseless accusations against others.
Since I do not have the hard cold evidence to force your hand at this time, I have to ask that you lay your cards out there and let everyone form their OWN honest opinions of what you have presented and just as importantly, as to why you have made such a presentation. You and I both know that "save the corals" is a cop out. Without clarity of ALL the facts and motivations, your efforts are and have been highly suspect at best.
Chuck
sihaya":3r7ta59g said:
No, you are not making any baseless accusations are you? And just how many times do I or Steven have to repeat ourselves on our unwillingness to make public what was given to us in trust. I should damage a friendship for you? Who are you to me?
From day one, I have said it a thousand times... What is presented, is incomplete, that is Sarah's own words, and without me having to point that out yet again, or prove it. That alone should have made it obvious that an intellegent discussion could not be had, let alone a debate. But since only gossip can be formed with such fragmentations, we have yet another assumption and accusation made with no proof other than " I think".
Chuck
Charlesr1958":2657k9w8 said:
Chuck - you've never met me and you don't know me. If you did know me, you'd know just how much it is all about the corals for me (and always has been). Why do you think I spent so many tireless hours on ASIRA? And all at my expense... I get nothing in return except maybe the satisfaction of knowing that someone, somewhere with a coral might be helped a little. You, on the other hand, would pull your photos from ASIRA just to spite me. Even at the cost to a good, helpful, completely free information source. I'm sorry, but that forces me to question where your heart really is.
No Chuck, I'm not going to answer any more of your questions about my motives. If you've been told rumors that you find disconcerting, then email me **privately** and I might discuss them with you (though as time goes on, I become less and less open to this). In any case, I assure you that they're all the same BS rumors that men typically throw at women when women piss them off. It's an old political trick and this is far from the first time it's been pulled.
Sara, I want to know what you find out. I find myself defending my hobby so often, to myself, every time I go to the LFS. I would like to be able to continue this hobby without the guilt, knowing the stuff I buy was collected legally and did not contribute to the raping of our oceans.
sihaya":1euxkfg4 said:
I know you Sara and I don't believe for one second caring about corals is your motivation. You enjoy stirring up trouble and the attention it creates. That is why you went after Jerel/Bomber/Spanky a year and a half ago. That is why you went after Eric and Kim for the salt study. And, that is exactly why you are doing this now.
Nawww, forget it. You and your history will all come out in the wash in due time. But for what its worth, anyone can go back into any number of forums (reef monkey being one of them) or The cage, and can do a simple search and come up with a good many clues all on their own. If I can do it, Joe Putz can as well. I did find the mensa reference enjoyable though.
For now, I am bowing out and will just kick back while the gossip fest runs itself into the ground and will wait for dirty laundry day to come around. I am sure to find it of great vindication.
Chuck
For now, I am bowing out and will just kick back while the gossip fest runs itself into the ground and will wait for dirty laundry day to come around. I am sure to find it of great vindication.
Chuck
- Status
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
