You have completely missed my point again. I was trying to point out that you can't just take something as fact just because someone says it's fact.

You say that it is pretty evident that many of these questions can be summarily answered by saying that they are respected academics who have spent years studying and are attempting to come to an objective answer to a puzzle that they have studied.

My response is, why is it pretty evident, and to whom?

Respected academics? Who says?

Spent years studying? Really? How many years, and studying what? How do you know?

Attempting to come to an objective answer to a puzzle that they have studied? Objective? How objective, and how do you know? How do you know that these academics aren't giving us their subjective ideas that have been reinforced by subjective research based on their own preconceived ideas?

I am not disputing the fact that we are depleting our natural resources, but I believe that the situation can be improved by proper management and conservation. What I disagree with is the assertion that 90% of the large fish are gone.

If you wish to believe something just because someone else says it's true, be my guest.

By the way, you should concentrate on fine-tuning your sarcasm. It really strengthens your position and underscores your credibility.

Attempting to avoid sarcasm and rant (this time) the following is meant as serious discussion - if you can respond in kind I would enjoy your input.


In reviewing your posts I find only assertions that these individuals are biased and potentially deceptive in their results and that believing what they say is niave foolishness and the implication is that they should be ignored since they hold a position that things are severe. I haven't found one shred of actual evidence that they are wrong or any actual evidence that they may be motivated by anything other than academic persuit.

You may be right that they are biased and trying to raise a stink over something that isn't so just to (insert hidden agenda here). But my point is that you haven't shed any ilumination on the subject. If you have evidence (other than a rather benign optimism) that these studies are wrong or that the individuals behind them are biased or motivated by some hiden agenda then you haven't presented it. What is the bias? What is the hidden agenda? Where are their methods and procedures innaccurate? What studies have you done that lead you to a different opinion? How are your methods and procedures superior to theirs? What is your hidden agenda? What is your bias?

When I know as much about you and your opinion as I do about the individuals with which you disagree then I will be able to learn something meaningful. Perhaps you will convince me that they are decievers with a hidden agenda and I a niave fool for having believed them - perhaps not. Until I know more about you, your methods and procedures, your credentials and agendas I cannot even consider your opinion on a par with theirs.

I learn much from the results of others studies that I don't have the time, skill or inclination to validate through my own study. I do check the sources of this type of information for credentials and motivations when I need to make personal decisions based on such information. I am always interested when someone casts doubt on any information that has been presented and I find that often the most reliable truth comes from considering both sides of a debate. I find disagreement without discussion a waste of time. If you have anything other than wishful disagreement to present then out with it. To accuse these researchers of lack of integrity and active deciept merely because you disagree with them does not bring forth any new information that would help us to move the discussion forward.

The implication is not that they should be ignored because they hold a position that things are severe. If there is any implication, it is that at best they should be considered questionable until proven otherwise.

I have not been offering any concrete proof one way or the other, because I don't have any more proof than anyone else. What I have offered are possible alternative explanations for any perceived reductions in fish populations. What I have presented have been opinions only. If someone chooses to disagree with my opinions, that is perfectly alright with me. Perhaps they have some well-considered opinions of their own.

I have also tried to make it clear that it is unwise to believe everything one reads or hears. To do so is to be naive and gullible. I am surprised that anyone in your profession would have a problem with that. Anybody can spout stuff as "fact", and anyone can pose as an expert. Backing up those claims is another matter.

You have implied that you know enough about these people to remove all doubt as to the accuracy of their claims. You have been strangely silent about this. What, specifically, do you know about them?

You also say that you have not found any actual evidence that these people are wrong, but what actual evidence do you have that they are right? Are you seriously looking for evidence one way or the other, or are you willing to accept what they say because you already agree with them? If you have any evidence to support these people and their theories, then, as you say, out with it.

Hucksters come a dime a dozen, and outlandish claims need to be met with a good dose of skepticism. It's always a good idea to use one's head for more than a hat rack.

Considering your caustic sarcasm of late, I don't think you are in any position to talk to me about not moving a discussion forward.

My apologies for any and all offense both intended and un-intended. I have learned a tremendous amount from this forum and am truly sorry if I have lowered the comfort or enjoyment of any other forumites.

I find this current thread to have reached the end of its usefulness for me - I cease to learn anything new from this discussion - so I will refrain from directly reply on this topic.