Who among us has a perfect tank? (vent)

[MrPillow]

I'd say that 99% of all opinions offered by anybody on most any matter in this "hobby" are opinions, speculation, here-say, or any number of notions which deviate from the standards of scientific scrutiny.

One would almost have to throw out the entire playbook to achieve any sort of universally accepted, empirically founded scientific basis of opinion.

It seems to me the aquarium world is by and large a place of inductive reasoning which flaunts itself as some sort of unquestionable pseudo-science. Unfortunately with no respected official standard present in the "hobby" world, this sort of logic (or lack there of) perpetuates itself rampantly and without check.

Induction is a useful thing, but now when attempting to formulate any sort of testable methodology or repeatable, measurable cause-effect relationship. Far too often we see people saying "my fish lived fine in the X conditions, so they must be perfect and acceptable for that organism". People try too hard to deduct reasons and rules from their gradual experiences.

Such though processes lend themselves to virtually no concept of proper experimentation or variable analysis, and end only in the results which the observer hopes to imply. While in many instances they might coincide with the results which would be generated by an inductive process, more times than not the "truth" is largely at odds, or entirely unrelated.


I have nothing to say on the particular matter at hand as I have never researched, kept, or cared to know much of anything about goldfish, but I would venture that applicable literature and data is indeed lurking out there somewhere in the shadows of academia

 

[jlk]

It has nothing to do with being impartial, or anyone else in the thread. How long does it take a fancy goldfish to get 10", if ever?

Perhaps you missed the world record holding oranda named Bruce....

Giant goldfish swims into the record books | News | Practical Fishkeeping

Bruce aside, three of my fancies are all around @10in. My local AGA breeder also has a few monsters that would even make my fancies look small but he also raises his fish in ponds.

No disrespect, Jeta, but I have to agree with Hukit that any fish, whether its a goldfish or cichlid or whatever species, that is 8 or 10 or 12+inches realisitcally does not belong in a 20g tank.

 

[Ljk09]

I'm not following with your 'if ever' remark. THEY WILL get that big if cared for properly. I'm not saying all of them will but how will you know if you don't take care of them?

 

[jetajockey]

Perhaps you missed the world record holding oranda named Bruce....

Giant goldfish swims into the record books | News | Practical Fishkeeping

Bruce aside, three of my fancies are all around @10in. My local AGA breeder also has a few monsters that would even make my fancies look small but he also raises his fish in ponds.

No disrespect, Jeta, but I have to agree with Hukit that any fish, whether its a goldfish or cichlid or whatever species, that is 8 or 10 or 12+inches realisitcally does not belong in a 20g tank.

Should we all plan around having world record sized fish in our tanks? In that case most of us need to upgrade tomorrow. I think it's a little more feasible to err on the side of 'bigger is better' in most cases, but I usually plan on average sizes when considering how to stock my tanks.

If you agree that a 8-12" fish realistically doesn't belong in a 20g tank, then what makes it advisable to keep that same fish in a tank that is only a few inches longer and the same width?
A 20H is 24 1/4 x 12 1/2 x 16 3/4
A 29 is 30 1/4 x 12 1/2 x 18 3/4


It's been a general consensus on this forum by many people including several participating in this thread that a 20g-30g is enough for a single fancy goldfish, are we changing that standard now?

 

[jlk]

I'm not following with your 'if ever' remark. THEY WILL get that big if cared for properly. I'm not saying all of them will but how will you know if you don't take care of them?

Jeta does have fancies and I am sure he takes excellent care of them.

However, my point is they do grow large, alot larger than most people realize or even care to consider. The majority of their growth also happens over a very short frame of time in comparison to other fish species. As a goldie lover, I wish they received the respect and consideration that any other larger species garners.

 

[Ljk09]

Jeta does have fancies and I am sure he takes excellent care of them.

However, my point is they do grow large, alot larger than most people realize or even care to consider. The majority of their growth also happens over a very short frame of time in comparison to other fish species. As a goldie lover, I wish they received the respect and consideration that any other larger species garners.

I'm sure he does take great care of his fish. I would like to think everyone that is on the forum does. But like you said, people often get the wrong impression of goldfish and they go in bowls. It's just sad.

 

[MrPillow]

Is it sadder that some goldfish end up in bowls, or that an entire community based around biology is relatively ignorant of scientific standards

Although I suppose we all have our own priorities.

 

[5x5]

I'd say that 99% of all opinions offered by anybody on most any matter in this "hobby" are opinions, speculation, here-say, or any number of notions which deviate from the standards of scientific scrutiny.

One would almost have to throw out the entire playbook to achieve any sort of universally accepted, empirically founded scientific basis of opinion.

It seems to me the aquarium world is by and large a place of inductive reasoning which flaunts itself as some sort of unquestionable pseudo-science. Unfortunately with no respected official standard present in the "hobby" world, this sort of logic (or lack there of) perpetuates itself rampantly and without check.

Induction is a useful thing, but now when attempting to formulate any sort of testable methodology or repeatable, measurable cause-effect relationship. Far too often we see people saying "my fish lived fine in the X conditions, so they must be perfect and acceptable for that organism". People try too hard to deduct reasons and rules from their gradual experiences.

Such though processes lend themselves to virtually no concept of proper experimentation or variable analysis, and end only in the results which the observer hopes to imply. While in many instances they might coincide with the results which would be generated by an inductive process, more times than not the "truth" is largely at odds, or entirely unrelated.

I have nothing to say on the particular matter at hand as I have never researched, kept, or cared to know much of anything about goldfish, but I would venture that applicable literature and data is indeed lurking out there somewhere in the shadows of academia

An essay to agree with the above poster that most people don't use scientific data when responding to posts? It always concerns me when the post is longer than the underlying message.

For all this talk about fish hobbyist using inductive reasoning, you're doing the same while explaining their behavior. Is this not conjecture that strong inductive/deductive reasoning is somehow the cause for the lack proper experimentation? Perhaps there are other more practical reasons as well such as time, money, space and value.

 

[jlk]

Should we all plan around having world record sized fish in our tanks? In that case most of us need to upgrade tomorrow. I think it's a little more feasible to err on the side of 'bigger is better' in most cases, but I usually plan on average sizes when considering how to stock my tanks.

If you agree that a 8-12" fish realistically doesn't belong in a 20g tank, then what makes it advisable to keep that same fish in a tank that is only a few inches longer and the same width?
A 20H is 24 1/4 x 12 1/2 x 16 3/4
A 29 is 30 1/4 x 12 1/2 x 18 3/4


It's been a general consensus on this forum by many people including several participating in this thread that a 20g-30g is enough for a single fancy goldfish, are we changing that standard now?

Would an 12" pleco be suitable for these tank measurements? I wouldnt personally keep a 12" of any species of fish in such small accomodations, including a fancy. My personal opinions, nothing more. 20-30g for a single fancy is a general recommendation with the caveat that it may not be suitable long term. Perhaps using a more pond based calculation of 10g per inch of fish would be more suitable but I think most people would have major issues even contemplating this notion so its not worth more than a brief mention.

 

[MrPillow]

So now we are asserting that I must reference a case study to make the claim that this niche is without scientific backing? Perhaps you could spend 10 minutes reading the forum and deduce that for yourself. Don't try inducing though or you will end up with a sore brain

I very well am deducing when it comes to my observations about the lack of scientific merit to most "theories" presented in this community. Perhaps we need a refresher course on what exactly induction and deduction are? I am tempted, but I would rather not bore you with a lengthy essay lest I venture too far down the road of being logical.

A scientific experiment cannot, by very nature, be deductive. Perhaps a few centuries ago, but the standards have evolved over time. We are past the stage of observant deduction. A survey could very well be deductive, but a survey itself does not make an experiment. Experiments are inductive, through and through.

I do not doubt that time, money, and spare are extremely limiting factors in the enactment of "home experiments" as it were, and most academic institutions have things far more important to care about than goldfish stocking feasibility. I personally, however, would debate you far and wide on the "value" aspect of such statements. As I stated, priorities differ among individuals and that is to be expected, but I personally would hold logic, critical standards of science to be far more valuable than many of the things debated on this forum. You are free to care about what you wish, I am merely expressing where I stand on the matter.


Perhaps if I kept my posts shorter then you might be able to deduce a different emotion which strays from the realm of concern

 

[MacDracor]

My limited Internet access (phone only) is seriously slowing me down, but I'm in the process of gathering credible research sources to write an article concerning minimum tank size. Of course this is extremely challenging as little log term research is done on fish unless they are economically important (like salmon or other common food fish).
Not to give a spoiler or anything, but of the few sources I have found, SO FAR all indicate that fish can and do release growth inhibiting pheremones that can cause stunting. I am hopeful I can gather enough information to present an article within the next couple of months.
Even if I am unable to, I will probably never waver in my belief that goldfish need bigger tanks if not ponds.

 

[5x5]

So now we are asserting that I must reference a case study to make the claim that this niche is without scientific backing? Perhaps you could spend 10 minutes reading the forum and deduce that for yourself. Don't try inducing though or you will end up with a sore brain

I very well am deducing when it comes to my observations about the lack of scientific merit to most "theories" presented in this community. Perhaps we need a refresher course on what exactly induction and deduction are? I am tempted, but I would rather not bore you with a lengthy essay lest I venture too far down the road of being logical.

A scientific experiment cannot, by very nature, be deductive. Perhaps a few centuries ago, but the standards have evolved over time. We are past the stage of observant deduction. A survey could very well be deductive, but a survey itself does not make an experiment. Experiments are inductive, through and through.

I do not doubt that time, money, and spare are extremely limiting factors in the enactment of "home experiments" as it were, and most academic institutions have things far more important to care about than goldfish stocking feasibility. I personally, however, would debate you far and wide on the "value" aspect of such statements. As I stated, priorities differ among individuals and that is to be expected, but I personally would hold logic, critical standards of science to be far more valuable than many of the things debated on this forum. You are free to care about what you wish, I am merely expressing where I stand on the matter.

Perhaps if I kept my posts shorter then you might be able to deduce a different emotion which strays from the realm of concern

Did I actually assert that you need a case study or did I point out a contradiction? As a self-described lover of logic, you sure like to engage in the most common of the documented fallacies. Keep beating up those straw-men.

I'll give you a pass on your "value" paragraph, because it's obvious you misunderstood my point. I am not talking about innate scientific value, I am talking about personal value as a function of time, money and space.

Your antagonistic nature is very transparent. What exactly are you trying to accomplish?

 

[baron1282]

Wow this turned into a Gold Fish Debate. Here is a REAL case study. I pulled this from ProQuest from the Purdue Library.

Poster Presentations Abbreviations: AA, amino acid; A:E ratio, essential amino acid ratio; EAA, essential amino acid

The largest and potentially most expensive component of a feed formulation for fish is protein, which needs to provide sufficient levels of the ten essential amino acids (EAA) to meet their requirements. The requirement for arginine, histidine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, threonine, tryptophan and valine has been demonstrated in all fish species examined to date (1). In effect, the EAA dietary profile should reflect the requirement profile. The most common method for quantifying dietary EAA requirements is the production of a dose-response curve using experimental diets with graded inclusion levels of the amino acids (AA) in question, and measuring weight gain as the response (2). This method has been used to quantitatively establish EAA for a selection of commercially cultured fish, including tilapia, salmon, milkfish, common carp and channel catfish(1). However, this method is both time consuming and costly, and can cause discrepancies as fish fed diets utilising casein as the protein source supplemented with free AA have shown lower growth rates when compared with fish fed diets with similar EAA profiles, based on a fishmeal protein source. In the last couple of decades, the measurement of whole-body EAA has been used to estimate dietary EAA requirements (3). This method, being an inexpensive fast alternative to dose-response studies, has been recommended for fish species whose EAA requirements have not yet been determined(4). Consequently, EAA data have now been quantified for fish species such as European seabass, gilthead seabream, turbot, Atlantic halibut, flounder, sturgeon, Arctic charr and yellow perch(5-9). Still, data for ornamental fish are limited and restricted to a few species, namely discus and black-finned pacu(10,11).

Fancy goldfish have been selectively bred for centuries to enhance such traits as finnage, eye shape and position, body colouration, scalation and body shape. Although all derived from the same species (Carassius auratus), there is presently a vast range of expressed phenotypes. Standard fusiform-shaped goldfish are used as baitfish in the USA, and the whole-body AA composition of juvenile (2·2-5·0 g) goldfish has been established(12). The aim of the present study was to determine the whole-body AA composition of adult fancy ranchu goldfish for comparative assessment with closely related species.
Materials and methods

The study was reviewed and approved by the WALTHAM® (Leicestershire, UK) Ethics Review Committee. A total of eight adult, male fancy ranchu goldfish, aged 6 months, with a mean weight of 34·3 (sem 1·4) g obtained as a result of routine culls by breeders, were used to assess whole-body AA composition. Individual fish were used for AA analysis ( n 8). The fish were freeze-dried whole with the gastrointestinal tract intact using an Edwards moduylo freeze drier (Edwards High Vacuum International, West Sussex, UK) and ground using a small coffee grinder before AA analysis. Alanine, arginine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid, glycine, histidine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, phenylalanine, proline, serine, threonine, tyrosine and valine were analysed by acid hydrolysis followed by ion exchange chromatography using ninhydrin derivatisation. Cysteine and methionine were analysed by performic oxidation followed by ion exchange chromatography using ninhydrin derivatisation, and tryptophan by alkaline hydrolysis followed by HPLC (AOAC methods) (13). From the whole-body AA composition, essential amino acid ratios (A:E ratio) were calculated as follows:

\begin{eqnarray} A:E\,ratio = (essential\,AA\,content/total\,essential\,AA\,content\,including\,cysteine\,and\,tyrosine)\times 1000. \end{eqnarray}

Results

The whole-body AA composition of adult fancy ranchu goldfish is presented in Table 1. The A:E ratio for adult fancy ranchu goldfish derived from whole-body AA composition are presented in Table 2, alongside previously published data for standard goldfish and carp. Generally, data appear to be similar between fish with only a couple of exceptions: the leucine A:E ratio for carp, which was considerably lower at 101, compared with 147 for goldfish and 151 for fancy goldfish. Additionally, there was also a discrepancy for both the phenylalanine and methionine A:E ratio, which were lower in fancy goldfish than the other two

fish varieties.

Table 1

Amino acid (AA) composition of whole-body tissue of adult fancy ranchu goldfish (n 8)
Table 2
Essential amino acid (EAA) requirement values for juvenile common carp, and associated essential amino acid (AA) ratios (A:E ratio) of juvenile common carp, juvenile goldfish and adult fancy ranchu goldfish (n 8)
* Values from National Research Council, 1993.
[dagger]
(EAA/total EAA including cysteine and tyrosine) × 1000.
[double dagger]
Values from Gatlin III, 1987(12).

Discussion

The whole-body AA values determined in the present study for adult fancy ranchu goldfish can be utilised to provide guidelines for formulating diets for this ornamental species, and are similar to those published for other fish species(10,11,12,14). This relationship between whole-body EAA and dietary requirement has been directly substantiated in several fish species, although it should be noted that these indices do not provide a quantitative total amount of each AA required by the fish. It should be considered that these fish did not have their gastrointestinal tracts removed before AA analysis; therefore, the absolute values for the whole-body profile may be slightly higher. However, these fish were relatively small and would have been fed as a group on the same diet before culling, so that any over-estimation will have been relative between the fish. The relationship between whole-body A:E ratio of adult fancy ranchu goldfish when compared with those for both carp and juvenile standard goldfish demonstrates only slight differences between these cyprinid fish, for methionine and phenylalanine. Underestimations for leucine have been observed when calculating dietary requirements of this AA against whole-body values for adult carp (12). Additionally, the arginine requirement of hybrid striped bass has been underestimated using whole-body EAA concentrations(15), suggesting that is not uncommon for slight inconsistencies to exist between AA and fish species. Various proposals have been made as to the variation in AA requirements between species, including the relative proportions of muscle tissue, particularly during a growth phase, and the physiological status of the fish, availability of AA and endogenous turnover of EAA (16,17). Although the A:E ratio of EAA do not display variability when compared with the A:E ratio of the EAA requirements, implying that whole-body EAA determination may be more accurate than EEA determination through dietary methods(4). The present study also demonstrates that when compared with other published data, age or size of fish does not influence the whole-body AA content or A:E ratio. This suggests that the dietary requirement for EAA's remains constant regardless of life stage, unlike protein level, which will vary. Such findings have also been established in other fish species such as the silver perch, channel catfish and common carp (16,18,19).
The fundamental nutrient requirements between standard goldfish and the many fancy goldfish varieties could be expected to be similar, as they have been selectively bred from the same species. Using data from this study in addition to others published for cyprinid fish, the production of the diets formulated to contain the protein with an optimal AA profile, would benefit the ornamental fish species. Particularly, as feeding excess levels of EAA can result in increased ammonia excretion and poor water quality (20), which is of high importance in a closed aquarium system.
Acknowledgements
There were no conflicts of interest to disclose. The present study received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. Principal investigator, data collection and manuscript prepared by D. L. S. and intellectual input and support from L. G. A.

References

References

1. 1 NRC (National Research Council) (1993) Nutrient Requirements of Fish, pp. 114. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
2. 2 RP Wilson (2002) Amino acids and protein. In Fish Nutrition, 3rd ed., pp. 144-181 [JE Halver and RW Hardy, editors]. New York, NY: Academic Press, Inc.
3. 3 C Ogino (1980) Requirements of carp and rainbow trout for essential amino acids. Bull Jap Soc Sci Fish 46, 171-174.
4. 4 T Akiyama, I Oohara & T Yamamoto (1997) Comparison of essential amino acid requirements with A/E ratio among fish species (review paper). Fish Sci 63, 963-970.
5. 5 SJ Kaushik (1998) Whole body amino acid composition of European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax), gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata) and turbot (Psetta maxima) with an estimation of their IAA requirement profiles. Aquat Living Resour 11, 355-358.
6. 6 JD Kim & SP Lall (2000) Amino acid composition of whole body tissue of Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus), yellowtail flounder (Pleuronectes ferruginea) and Japanese flounder (Paralichthys olivaceus). Aquaculture 187, 367-373.
7. 7 WK Ng & SSO Hung (1994) Amino acid composition of whole body, egg and selected tissues of white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus). Aquaculture 126, 329-339.
8. 8 R Gurure, J Atkinson & R Moccia (2007) Amino acid composition of Artic charr, Salvelinus alpinus (L.) and the prediction of dietary requirements for essential amino acids. Aquacult Nutr 13, 266-272.
9. 9 SD Hart, BJ Brown, NL Gould, (2010) Predicting the optimal dietary essential amino acid profile for growth of juvenile yellow perch with whole body amino acid concentration. Aquacult Nutr 16, 248-253.
10. 10 ASC Chong (2004) Amino acid profile of various body tissues and eggs of discus fish, Symphysodon aequifasciata. J Appl Aqua 16, 157-168.
11. 11 MB Van der Meer & MCJ Verdegem (1996) Comparison of amino acid profiles of feeds and fish as a quick method for selection of feed ingredients: a case study for Colossoma macropomum (Cuvier). Aquacult Res 27, 487-495.
12. 12 III DM Gatlin (1987) Whole-body amino acid composition and comparative aspects of amino acid nutrition of the goldfish, golden shiner and fathead minnow. Aquaculture 60, 223-229.
13. 13 AOAC (2003) Official Methods of Analysis, 16th ed. Arlington, VA: Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Inc.
14. 14 SN Mohanty & SJ Kaushik (1991) Whole body amino acid composition of Indian major carps and its significance. Aquat Living Resour 4, 61-64.
15. 15 RG Twibell, ME Griffen, B Martin, (2003) Predicting dietary essential amino acid requirements for hybrid striped bass. Aquacult Nutr 9, 373-381.
16. 16 RP Wilson & WE Poe (1985) Relationship of whole body and egg essential amino acid patterns to amino acid requirement patterns in channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus. Comp Biochem Physiol 80B, 385-388.
17. 17 PB Baker, K Dabrowski & DL Garling (1996) Nutrition and feeding of yellow perch Perca flavescens. J Appl Ichthyol 12, 171-174.
18. 18 P Ngamsnae, SS De Silva & RM Gunasekera (1999) Arginine and phyenylalanine requirement of juvenile silver perch Bidyanus bidyanus and validation of the use of body amino acid composition for estimating individual amino acid requirements. Aquacult Nutr 5, 173-180.
19. 19 FJ Schwarz & M Kirchgessner (1988) Amino acid composition of carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) with varying protein and energy supplies. Aquaculture 72, 307-317.
20. 20 T Cai, J Wermerskirchen & IR Adelman (1996) Ammonia excretion rate indicates dietary protein adequacy for fish. Prog Fish-Cult 58, 124-127.




AuthorAffiliation
Waltham Centre for Pet Nutrition, Freeby Lane, Waltham-on-the-Wolds, Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire LE14 4RT, UK



Copyright © The Authors 2011

 

[HUKIT]

Wow this turned into a Gold Fish Debate. Here is a REAL case study. I pulled this from ProQuest from the Purdue Library.

A link would have been more than sufficient over huge wall of text.

 

[d_flo_yo]

A link would have been more than sufficient...

I can't wait for that post to be replied to directly and it's entire contents quoted several times in this thread.

 

[MrPillow]

It would only be some sort of contradiction if such an assertion was true. Perhaps I was not clear enough, obviously it is not true, nor am I implying, that inductive logic is the only type which should ever be used in any situation. I am speaking strictly of the nature of science as it exists and its standards of process. As noted, I am merely pointing out what I have observed here, and I made a statement which I in no way claimed to be one of scientific virtue or value. Such a survey might very well provide the foundation for the construction of a deductive experiment if one wished, but I don't think that would be a good use of time, money, space or value

Perhaps we both misunderstood each others points in regards to value. I was not implying that academic institutions should be the ones carrying out this research, I was saying that because academia has largely ignored directly addressing many of the topics of debate present the hobby, it rests in the hands of the hobbyist to address these issues in a scientific manner if they desire to attain any truly conclusive answers to their questions. I would like to imagine that there are plenty of persons who are not "professionally" scientific that would love to attain such information in their home if the means, materials, and methods were easily accessible. Clearly money, time, etc. are all contributing factors to this not happening more than it does. However, it is very well possible that far fewer individuals give half a crap about seeking deductive answers than I, and more than likely probable. Doesn't stop a guy from hoping

I am not attempting to accomplish anything in particular other than engaging in some casual banter. It seems clear that making a few posts in a rather haphazard thread on a single aquaria forum is doing relatively nothing to sway any trends in the hobby, let's not pretend I am some sort of deductive crusade of antagonism. What irks me, and I would hope many others, is when individuals use inductive approaches (which are fine in many, many situations) and then claim deductive results. Does not compute I have never claimed that I have some sort of empirical data showing a trend in inductive statements over deductive ones relative to asserted "truths" of aquarium matters, I simply pulled some innate number from my head to illustrate an observation. As you pointed out, it would be foolish to say that my statement was the result of science or deduction, yet often I observe persons doing the same thing in regards to aquaria and the premise is readily accepted. Science has readily, and thoroughly described the criteria for what qualifies as valid experimental design - there is no way around this. Something isn't automatically scientific because someone wants it to be, they must follow the rules - they exist for a reason! So often I see a "truth", claimed to be based in "science", which has as little empirical evidence as me claiming out of nowhere that the sky is blue because we are looking out from inside a giant's blue eyeball. If I convinced enough people to repeat it, it would almost pass as "science" based on what I have seen in some discussions on this website. The opinion with the most votes is the scientific fact We could debate whether or not science can "prove" anything at all, considering the organic nature of deductive conclusions, but that would be a couple more essays in and of itself

Perhaps you will forgive me if I come across as a bit heavy handed, it is just the nature of my dialect. All in the intention of simple debate, for the sake of entertainment if nothing else Perhaps only my own entertainment, but that is a matter of personal value (and boredom).

 

[baron1282]

A link would have been more than sufficient over huge wall of text.

Maybe, but I think at this point the whole argument got off topic. We have went from calling people out for being rude and sarcastic to how Gold fish should be handled and please show a case study. So I did and it was meant to be sarcastic in nature.

This whole argument is a case and point of what the OP was talking about. When someone believes their information is correct they will become offensive toward another that presents a different opinion. Reading though this argument it has become just that.

I think the point to consider is when someone comes asking for help, we should help by showing facts. State what are facts and what is opinion. Facts are more valued than opinion. Far to many people give out opinions than facts, and this whole Gold Fish debate is proof.

 

[Aquatic_Adam]

I think it's funny how much more intense this thread is than the original thread the OP was venting about.

 

[twoodrough]

Wow - my vent thread turned into a case in point. Ironic.

 

[baron1282]

Wow - my vent thread turned into a case in point. Ironic.

It happens.