Fall Food Change (have fish little living)
1. It isnt sinister, it just doesnt give him any credibility. His plagiarism when
his articles first appeared didnt help at all either. And yes, that IS still
relevant and will be forever. It is his history. Plagiarism might not mean anything
to most people, but to trained scientists it is an abomination, it is grand theft
hard earned work.
The question is.. who IS Chris Neaves? What is his scientific background? What does
he do for a living? We have been down this road before with Koivorkian, a vet who
didnt have any specific background in fish when he started but hopefully, after
killing all his fish (once, twice?) has maybe learned something, but who, after all,
is in it for the money.
OTOH, people like Brett who makes a living breeding koi have the experience in
addition to the schooling and are very believable because he isnt online hawking
anything.
Compare Neaves with Noga, who puts together and properly cites and credits real
scientific information. There are tons of those "little big books" out there at pet
stores that are nothing but a brainless rehashing of long discredited methods by
other hacks parading as experts. Why is it that we still talk about "goldfish bowls"
and they are still selling people a dozen little goldfish and a 10 gallon tank?
The "idiot books" have been replaced by a plethora of online idiot hacks who take
bits and pieces of other peoples information, copy the information out of the "idiot
books" without regard for whether the information has any value what so ever and mish
mash it up on their website. A lot of it is "chum" to drag people to their websites
where ads are placed, every hit on a site = money from the ads.
Do a search for "dropsy" and you will find nearly everyone saying it is hopeless,
there is no treatment. Or, they give the most atrocious advice, like running the
salt up.
2. SO??? All this proves is he has the time to sit down and type. Writing something
doesnt mean it has any value at all. It isnt like scientists or a scientific book
company came to him and asked him to pull together current thinking in koi health,
nutrition and filtration. Printing it doesnt make it so, any idiot can get a book
published, smart idiots get other people to print it for them or they would have to
print it themselves (vanity press).
3. I most certainly am not misreading it. He is introducing the idea by way of an
****ogy. Now this could be crappy writing or not. BUT WHY MENTION IT AT ALL??
If I was writing the article I would say "Unlike most animals where digestion starts
in the mouth with the addition of pepsin and continues in the stomach with HCl, Koi,
WHICH HAVE NO STOMACH OR PEPSIN, only digest foods in the intestines by ....... .
His writing is typical of my freshman. Just toss in enough unrelated bullshit and see
if any of it sticks .. or impresses. That sentence is at the irrelevant and at worst
misleading. So you, me and how many others KNOW that koi dont have stomachs??
4. I am not only concerned with where a writer ends up, but with how he gets there.
Spot on with this issue, off by a mile on others if the journey is flawed.
Ingrid
1. >You type that like it is some sinister thing?
2>Koi related, he's researched and written 3 books on Koi health, nutrition
3. >I think you're misreading that, koi are not mentioned in that paragraph
4. >"Is wheat germ actually more easily digestible than animal protein?
|