well,...
hmpf!
:roll:
the question, and an honest one at that, :wink: still stands:
how can one make the assertion that a fish that died after a fw dip would definitely not have survived if either left to it's own devices, or treated in another fashion? (post mortem or not)
is the statement to be taken as meaning that every single fish you've dipped had a post mortem performed on it, and that the post mortem showed that the fish had absolutely no chance of surviving w/out the fw dip, and with any other type of treatment or non-treatment?
seamaiden wrote:
The instances I know of with fish that didn't survive a f/w dip proved to be cases where the animal wasn't going to survive anyway.
once again, sea, i'm just asking you to back up the apparent,( to me), fallacy of this statement-that you knew that any fish
would not have survived anyway
i would think that any reasonable person would be able to back up this assertion w/some type of explanation, especially when it's as misleading as this one, and on a 'noobie' forum, at that.
i think the request is fair, and reasonable :?
using your known feelings of animosity towards me as an excuse for not answering the actual question is laughable, imo. :lol:
just my $0.02 :wink:
