Save the Sea Kittens

[tw]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Sure we all know PETA are a bunch of greenie type weirdos who like to go to extreme lengths to get their point across, but please, can't they leave the children out of it???

Well both PETA (and Aliantha who will now reply hysterically) miss a bigger point. Man has so harmed the oceans since the mid 1980s that, for example, the once robust Grand Banks has now been depleted of cod for 16 years. Grand Banks were once one of the seven great fisheries in the world. But rampant overfishing - especially nets that capture, kill, and throw back 25% of the fish - has so depleted the Grand Banks that fishing has been banned for over a decade. 16 years later and the once plentiful cod on the Grand Banks are still near extinction with no sign of recovery.

A problem that exists all over the world and is still getting worse. The severe reduction in all categories of fish is (unfortunately) proceeding as the math predicted.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

(and Aliantha who will now reply hysterically) miss a bigger point.

There you go again. Was that really necessary?

Originally Posted by tw

Man has so harmed the oceans since the mid 1980s

cite something... anything to prove your timeline. This has been going on since long before the mid 80's. It started at least a decade earlier, probably more.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

cite something... anything to prove your timeline.

Of course. According to your reasoning, its been going on since the end of neanderthal man. But then classicman always posts attacks AND never risks posting a fact. Did classicman every cite a supporting facts for this (or any other) post? Of course not. He is doing as any good wacko would do. Post accusations and post subjectively - as he learned from listeningt to Rush Limbaugh.

Cite? classicman never posts citations. That is classic Limbaugh.

Meanwhile PETA (and Aliantha) miss the point. Since the 1980s, the world has massively depleted all fish stocks including something new - killing off and throwing back of 25% of the fish stock. A problem so severe that even after 16 years without fishing, the cod still have not returned to the Grand Banks. A problem now found all over the world.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

Of course. According to your reasoning, its been going on since the end of neanderthal man. But then classicman always posts attacks AND never risks posting a fact. Did classicman every cite a supporting facts for this (or any other) post? Of course not. He is doing as any good wacko would do. Post accusations and post subjectively - as he learned from listeningt to Rush Limbaugh.

Cite? classicman never posts citations. That is classic Limbaugh.

He asked for a citation for why you picked the 80's as the defining moment. That, Sir, is a legitimate question, and your tirade is way out of line.

Meanwhile PETA (and Aliantha) miss the point. Since the 1980s, the world has massively depleted all fish stocks including something new - killing off and throwing back of 25% of the fish stock. A problem so severe that even after 16 years without fishing, the cod still have not returned to the Grand Banks. A problem now found all over the world.

Couldn't of you just said that in the first place? Maybe they missed your point (not the point), because you told why you think the change in fishing technique has depleted fish stocks, while others including myself, are thinking about man's inhumanity to the oceans that has been going on for a very long time, and in more ways than just overfishing. While your point may be valid, you're thinking like an MBA. Our treatment of the oceans is much more troublesome than decreased food production. That, is the bigger point.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

He asked for a citation for why you picked the 80's as the defining moment. That, Sir, is a legitimate question, and your tirade is way out of line.

His is not a legitimate question because 'cite' without facts to justify a doubt is simply classicman's passive aggressive mockery again. You, on the other hand, are asking for further clarification in a responsible manner that includes clarification or foundation for your doubt or question. So you get a reply - not the turd.

Studies cite the 1980s as a point which fisheries were being depleted to levels that began a complete collapse of various species. It is now estimated that 90% of all species are in various stages of that complete collapse. Cod on the Grand Bank being a worst case example of what has been happening. After 16 years of banned fishing, Cod numbers still remain depleted for reasons not fully understood.

The 1980s is also when fish caught, killed, and thrown back went from near zero to 25%. Mankind now also trashes many other species that are important to stability of the ocean’s balance. Perfect example of what created this problem are drift nets which came into widespread use in the 1980s.

1980s is cited often as the time that numbers of fish taken exceeded a supportable number. Something like five of the world’s seven largest fisheries are now in trouble – on the verge of completely collapse. A problem made even more obvious by virtually no fish now around Taiwan and Japan where fish stock were depleted to complete collapse. The fish stocks never returned. What happened there long ago is now (and suddenly) being discovered all over the world.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

His is not a legitimate question because 'cite' without facts to justify a doubt is simply classicman's passive aggressive mockery again.

You, on the other hand, are asking for further clarification in a responsible manner that includes clarification or foundation for your doubt or question. So you get a reply - not the turd.

Oh really? Again with the attack. ok, Where is the cite provided for tw's reply to Bruce who simply restated classicman's request? Looks like tw again wrote a long post based upon tw's assumptions, opinions and/or politics without any proof. Something that one poster would call "whacko extremist." Interesting indeed.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

His is not a legitimate question because 'cite' without facts to justify a doubt is simply classicman's passive aggressive mockery again.

I disagree.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by tw

Meanwhile PETA (and Aliantha) miss the point. Since the 1980s, the world has massively depleted all fish stocks including something new - killing off and throwing back of 25% of the fish stock. A problem so severe that even after 16 years without fishing, the cod still have not returned to the Grand Banks. A problem now found all over the world.

What makes you think that I personally am not aware of the problems with fisheries the world over?

My husband has written numerous papers on the subject. He's written a book on fisheries management in Australia. He has a phd in zoology and his subject was the biology and management of the swallow tailed dart of the surf zone carangid.

You don't live with someone with that wealth of knowledge without learning a few things.

Come back to me if you actually want to have a discussion on the subject mate.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Come back to me if you actually want to have a discussion on the subject mate.

Aliantha is not the topic. PETA is the topic. PETA missing the point. I gather you understand the point. But you fail to grasp that I am not discussing Aliantha. I am discussing the relevant part of the topic - which PETA seems to completely ignore.

Somehow, you have confuse a criticism of the point with a criticism of you? Why? You are not attached to PETA or a serous fisheries problem. But you missed (did not post) what is an obvious criticism of (mistake made by) PETA.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

Well both PETA (and Aliantha who will now reply hysterically) miss a bigger point.

Originally Posted by classicman

There you go again. Was that really necessary?

cite something... anything to prove your timeline. This has been going on since long before the mid 80's. It started at least a decade earlier, probably more.

Originally Posted by tw

But then classicman always posts attacks AND never risks posting a fact. Did classicman every cite a supporting facts for this (or any other) post?

Cite? classicman never posts citations.
Meanwhile PETA (and Aliantha) miss the point.

Originally Posted by classicman

I'm sorry tw - I missed your cite AGAIN - Try posting some actual facts to support your claim that the fish depletion began in the 80's.
FWIW, I post a citation each and every time I'm asked.

Originally Posted by tw

Aliantha is not the topic. PETA is the topic. PETA missing the point.

Somehow, you have confuse(d)a criticism of the point with a criticism of you? Why? You are not attached to PETA or a serous fisheries problem. But you missed (did not post) what is an obvious criticism of(a)(mistake made by) PETA.

Seems like you brought her into it - You made it personal.

And I cited several quotes/sources (see post #15) to back up my claim which tw AGAIN ignored because they do not agree with tw's politics. This seems very hypocritical.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by tw

Well both PETA (and Aliantha who will now reply hysterically) miss a bigger point.

A problem that exists all over the world and is still getting worse. The severe reduction in all categories of fish is (unfortunately) proceeding as the math predicted.

Looks like you made it personally about me and attached me to PETA yourself tw.

Originally Posted by tw

Meanwhile PETA (and Aliantha) miss the point. Since the 1980s, the world has massively depleted all fish stocks including something new - killing off and throwing back of 25% of the fish stock. A problem so severe that even after 16 years without fishing, the cod still have not returned to the Grand Banks. A problem now found all over the world.

And again you attach me to PETA through your statement suggesting that I don't get the point you're making.

Originally Posted by tw

Aliantha is not the topic. PETA is the topic. PETA missing the point. I gather you understand the point. But you fail to grasp that I am not discussing Aliantha. I am discussing the relevant part of the topic - which PETA seems to completely ignore.

Somehow, you have confuse a criticism of the point with a criticism of you? Why? You are not attached to PETA or a serous fisheries problem. But you missed (did not post) what is an obvious criticism of (mistake made by) PETA.

Your condescending attitude towards anyone else with knowledge on a subject (and might I add that many people here are more informed on this subject than you are) is why I felt it necessary to inform you that you're barking up the wrong tree when accusing me of 'not getting the point'. You're a rude little so and so with an over-inflated sense of importance when it comes to any topic you decide to shoot your mouth of on. Aside from that, your vitriolic responses to some other members here recently have left me with a very sour taste in my mouth with regard to your ability to even discuss a topic with any real intelligence at all. Your contribution to this forum is nothing more than a running joke, but you're the only one who doesn't get it. You think people take you seriously? You think anyone has any respect for your reconstituted drivel?

The answer is no. You're nothing more than a small man with a bad case of verbal diarrhea.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Your condescending attitude towards anyone else with knowledge on a subject (and might I add that many people here are more informed on this subject than you are) is why I felt it necessary to inform you that you're barking up the wrong tree when accusing me of 'not getting the point'. You're a rude little so and so with an over-inflated sense of importance when it comes to any topic you decide to shoot your mouth of on.

Fine. I stand by what I posted with no consideration or intent for personal attacks. PETA (and your criticism of PETA) misses the fundamental point. I never said you did not know this. I said you were criticizing the irrelevant thing. Any condescending - you added that to what I did not say and did not intend to say. To see condescending, then see what I have to say about TheMercenary's wife. Was that in the post? Of course not. Then nothing was personal. I will often appear rude because I just post and challenge facts - that have no attachement to people.

Meanwhile, your criticism of (silly) PETA completely missed a larger and more relevant point - my point then and still my point now.

Meanwhile, what can you add to this predicted collapse of so many fisheries?