how much return flow do i need?

[Steven0000]

i have a 55 gallon tank with a 20gallon sump
how much flow would i need?

[Icefire]

150-250gph

[Steven0000]

thanks!

[nyvp]

are you asking how much should flow through your sump or whole tank flow?

[woz9683]

I was wondering the same thing. But either way, 150-250 gph seems kind of low to me? Of course, it also depends on what it is you're keeping in the tank (if this is a primary source of water movement for the tank). That 150-250gph seems closer to the amount of flow you want going through a skimmer for this size system.

[tptp279]

it really just depends on the person. some enjoy low flow through the sump for benefits of noise level, less heat/energy due to smaller pump, as well as more interaction skimmer time, others use 10x return for flow rate(but you need more internal flow). So it really is just more of a preference than anything. Me personally, i went higher but now wish i went lower for noise reasons.

[Steven0000]

just enough flow to keep water flowing through the sump

i will add powerheads for in-tank flow

[RandyStacyE]

I once read where it was suggested to have anywhere from 5-10 times your display tanks' volume per hour.

I use a GenX-2400 (633 gph) as a return pump on my 55. I also use a 2400 on my wifes' 38 gal. I woud prefer a bit more flow than that on my 55.

633 gph may sound like a lot of flow, but it isn't once you consider head pressure. I believe I actually get 396 gph by the time it gets up top.

[Steven0000]

wow

i guess i will go with a higher gph just to be safe
and just adjust it to my liking

[RandyStacyE]

It's real easy to make due with too large of a return pump too. You can simply Tee off the return line and use a ball valve to bypass any excess water back to the sump.

That excess water could feed a UV steralizer, a recirc skimmer or just directed back to a filter sock.

I wish I could suggest a pump for you, but I've always used a Dolphin DP-560 and a GenX-2400 which are exactly the same pump. I've never switched, but I'm sure there are better pumps out there.

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10026844#post10026844 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RandyStacyE
It's real easy to make due with too large of a return pump too. You can simply Tee off the return line and use a ball valve to bypass any excess water back to the sump.


Which wastes a ton of electricity, and creates a ton of extra heat.

[RandyStacyE]

True, true.

Definitely shoot for the perfect pump. Ideally you'd want to feed something like a recirc skimmer from something virtually free like your overflow.

Of course if anyone settles with 'too bit of a pump' (and redirects the excess flow) … if you get down to the brass tacks ... calculating the excess electricity ... you'll find you're paying more for the extra flow.

[Steven0000]

nice picture rich

i think i will go with something around 200gph
give or take 50gph

[ChemE]

I've had great results across the last 2 years using a MJ1200 as my return pump for my 55g with a 29g sump. As an added bonus at that head pressure the MJ1200 only draws 13 watts or 9.5 kWh/month.

[RandyStacyE]

Actually not that I think about it ... you don't need a ton of flow going through your overflow. I believe many suggest up to around 10 times your total system volume per hour with water movement not necesarilly 'through your overflow/sump'.

Like ChemE said ... he used an MJ as a return pump, but I bet he had plenty of flow in his display tank due to an additional power head or something.

[Steven0000]

thats a good idea

[sjm817]

What kind of overflow do you have?

[Steven0000]

can you specify?
im not sure what you are talking about

[ChemE]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10032145#post10032145 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RandyStacyE
...Like ChemE said ... he used an MJ as a return pump, but I bet he had plenty of flow in his display tank due to an additional power head or something.

You bet correctly. I'm running a Maxi-Stream 900 spinning a 1.25" high pitch prop. I tested it at about 1,500 gph using the empty plastic bag method (not super accurate) so I'm getting about 1.5 tank volumes/hour from my return pump and another 27 from the powerhead (6 watts on my Kill-A-Watt). So all told I've got 28.5 tank turnovers/hour for a scant 19 watts!

[sjm817]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10032656#post10032656 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Steven0000
can you specify?
im not sure what you are talking about
Me? What type of overflow? Reef ready? Drilled DIY? HOB? U Tube? CPR CS?

[Steven0000]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10032891#post10032891 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by sjm817
Me? What type of overflow? Reef ready? Drilled DIY? HOB? U Tube? CPR CS?

o sorry
DIY drilled

[Steven0000]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10032852#post10032852 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ChemE
You bet correctly. I'm running a Maxi-Stream 900 spinning a 1.25" high pitch prop. I tested it at about 1,500 gph using the empty plastic bag method (not super accurate) so I'm getting about 1.5 tank volumes/hour from my return pump and another 27 from the powerhead (6 watts on my Kill-A-Watt). So all told I've got 28.5 tank turnovers/hour for a scant 19 watts!

i think i'll go with that idea
but with less flow

[mope54]

Anyone have a link for the minimum flow required through the overflow? I've got a 250gal but I don't want 2000gph running through the sump in the living room

[ChemE]

There is no minimum per say. You should be guided by the surface of your display. In general 1.0-1.5 tank turnovers per hour is sufficient to keep the display surface free of surface active proteins (white film) which can inhibit proper gas exchange. After this is accomplished more flow is just more heat and noise; you'll derive no additional benefit from increasing the flow through your skimmer/sump loop. Also it is always most efficient to plumb 100% of your raw overflow water directly into your skimmer. This way those surface active proteins have the greatest shot of getting skimmer out and not building up in the sump and possibly getting sent back to the display.

[mavgi]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10034464#post10034464 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mope54
Anyone have a link for the minimum flow required through the overflow? I've got a 250gal but I don't want 2000gph running through the sump in the living room

for your 250 gallon tank you want more then 2000GPH pump for sure ...

i run on my 120 gallon 2 mega flow today mag18 (1800gph) but i believe i get 1200GPH .. if heat wasn't issue i was run 2400gph as a return (i can't run external pump no place)

IMO it's also depend how you want to keep your system and how do you want to stock your bioload ...

i think that more water that will circulate in your sump filtration will give you more healthy system , stabile parameter and bottom line less water change as much as your water will be more filter threw the system it will be better ...

i think also that you will need a very good circulation inside the tank this will help to move all the detritus to your over flow and go to the filter system .

in the past i run 4-5x threw my filter system (sump) i have a lot of problem to keep stabile water parameter since i have heavy bio load in my 120 and feeding very heavy i did water change every week 10-15% to control on the nitrate PO4 and to reduce cayno today i can do water change every 2 week without problem the water parameter very stabile i don't have any cyano and the glass stay clean 2 week with out to tuch it with the mag flout i also run a bare bottom tank and the bottom of the tank very clean .

before i was need to clean the glass every 2 days the bottom of the tank was dirty and if i was lazy to make on time water change i saw quick red slime or cyano build on my live rock and sign of bacteria infection start to show on my fishes. from my experience i believe that this because more water was filter under all my filtration i use always a bigger skimmer rate to my tank size and never have success to keep it as after i increase the water flow threw the sump (not the water that circulate inside the tank). maybe other will not agree but the true this is what happened in my tank .

[BeanAnimal]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10034633#post10034633 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ChemE
There is no minimum per say. You should be guided by the surface of your display. In general 1.0-1.5 tank turnovers per hour is sufficient to keep the display surface free of surface active proteins (white film) which can inhibit proper gas exchange. After this is accomplished more flow is just more heat and noise; you'll derive no additional benefit from increasing the flow through your skimmer/sump loop. Also it is always most efficient to plumb 100% of your raw overflow water directly into your skimmer. This way those surface active proteins have the greatest shot of getting skimmer out and not building up in the sump and possibly getting sent back to the display.

I disagree with that ChemE (you knew I would!).

Increased turnover can greatly increase the skimming of the surface protiens even after you no longer "see" the film.

Of course there is a point of diminishing returns... I also like the idea of a raised sump and skimmer to aid in elimination of head loss.

I am however a fan of moderatly high flow sumps. That said, there are many ways to setup a thriving system :)

[mope54]

Taking into consideration what both of you said, how do you feel I would do with a pump rated at near 1000 GPH? That would give me about 3x turnover.

The main concern I had was that if I have low sump turnover, will proteins continually build up and have no way to flush out from the main system? Even with high display turnover (or higher, I have LPS so I don't want to shake them off the rocks) it seems like the proteins would eventually just get moved around in the tank.

I am planning on keeping my eel, a shark, and a ray so my bioload will be very high even with those limited animals.

[mavgi]

in 250 gallon tank 1000gph will not move or shake nothing in the water and if you want to keep shark water quality will be very important . imo this will not be good enough you will need also to put PH or to run CL to move water in the system.

on my 120 gallon tank if the return pump work without the PH i don't have good water movement and it's 1800GPH and protein build up quick on the surface when i run my PH everything change .

[mope54]

I have about 6000GPH flow *inside* the tank.

I'm only asking about the return pump...water through the sump.

[BeanAnimal]

You may want to talk to shark experts... but your setup is more than likely a candidate for a high turnover sump. 250 is also pretty small for a shark. Let alone a shark and a ray.

[mope54]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10036969#post10036969 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BeanAnimal
You may want to talk to shark experts... but your setup is more than likely a candidate for a high turnover sump. 250 is also pretty small for a shark. Let alone a shark and a ray.

I'm only curious about flow rates through the overflow in the context of this thread.

I don't recall mentioning the type of shark or the ray, or my tank's dimensions, for that matter. Without that information, opinions on my tank's suitability for the animals isn't going to be informed and I would appreciate not being sidetracked by them.

[BeanAnimal]

Oh sorry would not want to bog this thread down the details, afterall who needs them right?

You do not want to discuss the type of shark or ray or the tanks dimensions, but you DO want opinions on the overflow size and flow rate? Sorry mope, but they are all related.

Like I said, go talk to some of the shark experts over in the other forum. If you do not tell them what you intend to keep and what the dimensions of the tank are...

[mavgi]

mope54

I have 48x24x24 tank size in my L/R i run mag18 no noise at all i dont know if you want run pump internal or external , again IMO if you can run external 2400GPH will be great if you run internal at least go with 1800GPH . if this tank connect to 2 flow with 1000GPH you will not get 500GPH flow (and this depend how the over flow build if they in the side of the tank i don't believe you will get more then that)

i run in my tank 2 vortec and 2 seio m2600 (about 11200GPH)

again this is your tank and your decision i just suggest what i think you need to decide .... and i saw a lot of ppl keep shark even in smaller tank (180 gallon) if you like it why not enjoy it :D

[mope54]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10037246#post10037246 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BeanAnimal
Oh sorry would not want to bog this thread down the details, afterall who needs them right?

You do not want to discuss the type of shark or ray or the tanks dimensions, but you DO want opinions on the overflow size and flow rate? Sorry mope, but they are all related.

Like I said, go talk to some of the shark experts over in the other forum. If you do not tell them what you intend to keep and what the dimensions of the tank are...

No, I'd rather the details be relevant to the question.
You can take offense or however you are taking my reply, it's difficult to ascertain tone on a web forum.

But basically, when I want opinions about shark keeping I'll do exactly as you suggested: talk to a shark expert.

BeanAnimal, I'm not now and never was soliciting your opinion on a pump for my system so keep your opinions about my livestock to yourself.

Perhaps it's my fault in that I didn't make myself clear.
I've seen discussions about low flow sump rates vs. high flow sump rates and the low flow design implements high flow inside the display. My interest is how this arrangement cleans the water over time given that it seems like waste would continue to build in the main display.

Let me make it easier...
Let's say I don't plan on keeping any livestock in the tank, I'm just going to toss a cup of chum in my tank once a week.

How does having 8 Tunze streams make up for not rotating the water out of the display? Or is the display circulation simply meant to eradicate dead spots and keep waste near the top of the water column?

This question is more amined at ChemE or any other low flow sump rate advocate since BeanAnimal has already expressed a bias toward high flow sump rates.

[BeanAnimal]

BeanAnimal, I'm not now and never was soliciting your opinion on a pump for my system so keep your opinions about my livestock to yourself. May I remind you that you posted in a PUBLIC forum. If you do not LIKE the opinons then ignore them instead of acting like a spoiled child who should not have to entertain anything that he does not want to listen to.

Your responses are rather condescending, as is your attitude.

I've seen discussions about low flow sump rates vs. high flow sump rates and the low flow design implements high flow inside the display. My interest is how this arrangement cleans the water over time given that it seems like waste would continue to build in the main display. That is EXACTLY what I am talking about.

The detials are, well in the details.

1) What is the bioload?
2) What are the feeding habbits and ammounts?
3) What is the surface area of the tank?
4) What FUNCTION is the sump serving?
5) What size and type of waste will the livestock produce
6) What kind of substrate or means will be used to suspend or remove detritus from the display
7) Will there be a skimmer or mechanical filter.

You want answers to a question that is very broad, and we do not have enough details to even begin to answer it.

Let me make it easier...

How does having 8 Tunze streams make up for not rotating the water out of the display? Or is the display circulation simply meant to eradicate dead spots and keep waste near the top of the water column? Again, we do not have anywhere near enough detials to answer that. What do you plan on using the sump for? Is there going to be LR in the sump, is there going to be mechanical filtration in the sump? Etc, etc.

This question is more amined at ChemE or any other low flow sump rate advocate since BeanAnimal has already expressed a bias toward high flow sump rates. I certainly do not have a BIAS towards high flow sumps. A low flow sump is certainly very reasonable way t setup a thriving system. YOU my friend have made a lot of assumptions about what I have a bias towards and what I understand (or do not understand).

Lets break this down so that YOU understand:

If you have a LOW flow sump and a high waste load then you will need to provide means to export that waste somehow. Because the sump is low flow, you will need to look elsewhere to provide the export. This may mean a directly attached skimmer or power filter.

With large particulate matter (you mentioned CHUM) you may want to provide surface skimmers with appropriate water movement to direct floating waste towards them.

With a HIGH flow sump you may be able to put the bulk of the mechanical filtration in the sump and use the tanks overflow as the surface and particulate skimmer.

You did not mention substrate (or bare bottom) but with a ray, you will likely need substrate (ohh here go the details again). That begs the question as to what kind of substrate and how much. In either case where will you derive the biological filtration. Are you going to be using a WET DRY filter or LR?

In a LOW FLOW sump you may not get enough flow through this biological filter of there is minimal LR and substrate in the display. In the converse, if the display is full or LR and substrate, then you may not need a bio filter in the sump and instead can simply use it to extend the total system water volume.

So you may not want to hear about the details... but they are needed to HELP YOU choose a suitable filtration method, PART OF THAT being the type of sump and it's flow rate.

YOU COULD of course choose a HIGH or LOW flow sump as the basis and then build the filtration (both mechanical and biological) around the limitations and characteristics of the chosen sump flow.

Lets try it this way: "I have a 250 gallon tank of X dimensions. I plan (on good authority) to keep x y and z in the tank. I was told that they can be messy fish. I can only put 1000 GPH through the sump for noise and electricty cost reasons... how should I go about designing the filtration?"

[mope54]

BeanAnimal, I can choose to ignore your posts.
I'd rather not do that. I don't feel like I'm acting spoiled or childish when I request that you not derail a thread for details that aren't necessary. You were perfectly capable of listing all of your latest concerns and opinions without my tank's or livestock details...so why you couldn't do it before is really only known by yourself. There are plenty of other spaces around here where people can argue/debate/discuss to their hearts' content what a suitable environment for a shark and/or ray is. This doesn't seem like the appropriate place to do it, in my opinion.

Several responses back you wrote that you were a "fan of moderately high flow sumps". You wrote that in response to ChemE's assertion that a low flow sump was adequate. You pointed out that you disagreed with him and you also wrote that he knew this. I made no assumptions in this regard...you posted how you felt about that arrangement and you made it clear that your opinions on that matter were known to others on the forum.

I've seen your responses from time to time and if there's one thing that strikes me about them it's that they are almost always filled with information at the same time condescending. I was struck with irony that you feel the same way about my posts...however I'll say this: I tried to politely keep the thread from going the direction I've seen you take other threads. If you felt that was done too rudely, then I suggest you come back to this thread later and re-evaluate how you interacted with me.

All that said, I've made it perfectly clear I have no further interest in your opinion in this matter. Hopefully you take a deep breath and realize that yes, I can choose to ignore you, but it might make more sense for you to quit replying to someone who has no interest in speaking with you.

[mope54]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10034884#post10034884 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mavgi

i think also that you will need a very good circulation inside the tank this will help to move all the detritus to your over flow and go to the filter system .

in the past i run 4-5x threw my filter system (sump) i have a lot of problem to keep stabile water parameter since i have heavy bio load in my 120 and feeding very heavy i did water change every week 10-15% to control on the nitrate PO4 and to reduce cayno today i can do water change every 2 week without problem the water parameter very stabile i don't have any cyano and the glass stay clean 2 week with out to tuch it with the mag flout i also run a bare bottom tank and the bottom of the tank very clean .

before i was need to clean the glass every 2 days the bottom of the tank was dirty and if i was lazy to make on time water change i saw quick red slime or cyano build on my live rock and sign of bacteria infection start to show on my fishes. from my experience i believe that this because more water was filter under all my filtration i use always a bigger skimmer rate to my tank size and never have success to keep it as after i increase the water flow threw the sump (not the water that circulate inside the tank). maybe other will not agree but the true this is what happened in my tank .

mavgi,

Thank you for your replies.
It seems like part of your suggestion for higher sump flows is due to the problems you had with detritus buildup in your display. Once you were unable to export it, your water quality deteriorated rapidly. Is this correct understanding your issues?

So when you are describing this time of when you were only running 5x through your sump, how much display circulation did you have?

[BeanAnimal]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10037587#post10037587 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mope54
BeanAnimal, I can choose to ignore your posts.
I'd rather not do that. I don't feel like I'm acting spoiled or childish when I request that you not derail a thread for details that aren't necessary. You were perfectly capable of listing all of your latest concerns and opinions without my tank's or livestock details... The livestock details would have made the answer much easier to formulate with MORE information that has been provideded already.

There are plenty of other spaces around here where people can argue/debate/discuss to their hearts' content what a suitable environment for a shark and/or ray is. This doesn't seem like the appropriate place to do it, in my opinion. It was a passing comment, with the BULK of the focus on talking to the shark experts (as I am not one). I only know what I have read and have very little first hand experience with sharks or rays.

Several responses back you wrote that you were a "fan of moderately high flow sumps". You wrote that in response to ChemE's assertion that a low flow sump was adequate. You pointed out that you disagreed with him and you also wrote that he knew this. I am a FAN of a certain methodology, not JUST the moderatly high flow sump. I also clearly stated that there are MANY ways to build a thriving system.

The stated opinion with regard to ChemE was the surface skimming as it relates to protien removal. Notice I also mentioned that diminishing returns are a real world consideration. That would infer that each situation would be different (and therfore so would the difinition of HIGH or LOW flow).

]I've seen your responses from time to time and if there's one thing that strikes me about them it's that they are almost always filled with information at the same time condescending. Don't mistake condescention with to the point without any fluff.

I was struck with irony that you feel the same way about my posts...however I'll say this: I tried to politely keep the thread from going the direction I've seen you take other threads. If you felt that was done too rudely, then I suggest you come back to this thread later and re-evaluate how you interacted with me. Your kidding right? Maybe you see threads take this direction because the world has plenty of people like yourself. In the last 3 sentances alone you have tried to elevate yourself above me and at the same time made a personal attack and a condescending request for me to "re-evaluate" my actions.

Irony.. yes.

Shall we go back?

You said: I am planning on keeping my eel, a shark, and a ray so my bioload will be very high even with those limited animals.

I said: You may want to talk to shark experts... but your setup is more than likely a candidate for a high turnover sump. 250 is also pretty small for a shark. Let alone a shark and a ray.

No condesention, just a thought about flow for that type of animal and advice to talk to the experts that would know better. In addition an OPINION based on what I have read about sharks, rays and eels. Notice that the OPINION came AFTER the referal to the experts. Context man, context... Then of course your that guy who feels all opinions are valid as long as they agree with what you want to hear... otherwise you have the right to get nasty. Isnt that exactly what happened?

Your next comment: BAM I don't recall mentioning the type of shark or the ray, or my tank's dimensions, for that matter. Without that information, opinions on my tank's suitability for the animals isn't going to be informed and I would appreciate not being sidetracked by them. Now that my friend is condesention. Irony yes.. it is folks just like you who tend to whip these things up and then scream that the thread got ruined.

All that said, I've made it perfectly clear I have no further interest in your opinion in this matter. Ahh and a bit more fuel to the fire?

Hopefully you take a deep breath and realize that yes, I can choose to ignore you, but it might make more sense for you to quit replying to someone who has no interest in speaking with you. And even more fuel.

Yes MOPE some of the threads I am involved in take the same course... it is not ironic at all that they are always with the same type of people.

[mope54]

Here's some more fuel for you then...

The common denominator in all of those threads is you, not a "type" of people. If you are talking with a group of people and you feel like you can't get your points across without arguing or that there is some kind of communication problem, then the problem is more likely *you* then *all* of them.

Given that I've never had a forum spat with anyone ever before on this forum, and I have seen you have numerous ones, I'm confident in the way I've handled myself and I feel that you need to re-evaluate wher the problem resides. Perhaps you feel that I am elevating myself above you with that statement, which is fine for you to continue thinking.

You made a couple of statements that border on delusional, however. First of all, I am not the type of person who feels that all opinions are valid. I made that clear when I pointed out that yours was uninformed. You called that condescenscion, whereas it's a clear-cut fact. You made an assessment of my tank's suitability for a a fish when you had no idea the dimensions of my tank or the size of the fish...you still don't.

Rather than admit you spoke out of ignorance, you proceeded to drag this thread down a path that has absolutely nothing to do with steve's original question and very little to do with mine.

You make the claim that your points are blunt facts rather than condescension, but you are unable or unwilling to recognize when you are treated with the straight dope.

Wrap your mind around this: when you said my tank wasn't suited for the animals in it, you were speaking out of ignorance. Rather than argue with someone willing to make blanket statements out of ignorance, I suggested we move past a point you weren't even qualified to speak on...

Should I have argued with someone who has no idea what he is speaking about from a technical or expertise perspective? No, I should have done exactly what I did...politely suggest we move off the topic of inhabitant suitability.

Since you feel you are the victim of a type of people in these threads, I can only suggest that you follow your own advice and ignore those kinds of posts. I have no idea what motivates you, perhaps you are bored at work. But your repsonses in this thread are not helpful in context or without it. They are jus argumentative. The only thing you are "proving" is that you are trying to win an argument that no one else is interested in having...

[BeanAnimal]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10037893#post10037893 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mope54
Here's some more fuel for you then... Ahh drag the tead down even furhter while still trying to promote yourself as the kind and inocent victim that has the right to lash out. Give me a break man...

The common denominator in all of those threads is you, not a "type" of people. If you are talking with a group of people and you feel like you can't get your points across without arguing or that there is some kind of communication problem, then the problem is more likely *you* then *all* of them. Actually that shows how wrong you are. The majority of the threads DO NOT end up that way, nor do the dialogs in real life. The true common denominator is folks just like yourself sir. You took exception to an opinion and have become unhinged because of it. You have ignored all of the good and factual information and resorted to this, all because you took exception to an opinion. Grow up.

Given that I've never had a forum spat with anyone ever before on this forum, and I have seen you have numerous ones, I'm confident in the way I've handled myself and I feel that you need to re-evaluate wher the problem resides.Ahh yes and I have helped countless people and made numerous friends. You can be confident all you want about your actions, most people are no matter how backwards their thinking is.

You made a couple of statements that border on delusional, however. First of all, I am not the type of person who feels that all opinions are valid. I made that clear when I pointed out that yours was uninformed.[quote] You took the opportunity to start a childish fight. Don't you get it?

[b][quote] You called that condescenscion, whereas it's a clear-cut fact. You made an assessment of my tank's suitability for a a fish when you had no idea the dimensions of my tank or the size of the fish...you still don't. no brainiac, I added an opinion to a VERY OPEN discussion that you failed to provide facts for.

Rather than admit you spoke out of ignorance, you proceeded to drag this thread down a path that has absolutely nothing to do with steve's original question and very little to do with mine. Now you confuse ignorance with opinion? Good grief man grow up.


[b][quote]Wrap your mind around this: when you said my tank wasn't suited for the animals in it, you were speaking out of ignorance. Rather than argue with someone willing to make blanket statements out of ignorance, I suggested we move past a point you weren't even qualified to speak on... No you acted like a spoiled brat who should not have to entertain such "ignorant" comments, no matter how benign they were.

[quote]Should I have argued with someone who has no idea what he is speaking about from a technical or expertise perspective? No, I should have done exactly what I did...politely suggest we move off the topic of inhabitant suitability. Your were certainly not polite. You have tipped your hand even more by refering to the comments as ignorant.

Since you feel you are the victim of a type of people in these threads, I can only suggest that you follow your own advice and ignore those kinds of posts. NOW that is classic. I do not feel I am the victim of anything whatsoever. The great part is that I was ONE of the people that responded to your post in an attempt to help and offer opinion. Your just to ignorant to accept it or ignore it. Like I said, you acted like a spoiled child and still are.

The only thing you are "proving" is that you are trying to win an argument that no one else is interested in having... And what are you trying to do? Yes indeed, there are plenty of folks like yourself who can't see the nose to spite the face.

You started the post with "to add fuel..." Which shows that your only intention is to make personal attack and perpetuate an arguement... to win? Did you not say you were going to ignore me? You mentioned Irony, you have asked me to step back and take a breath, to step back and look at my actions. Now that IS ironic, if not wholesale absurd.

Priceless.

[BlueCorn]

[chimp]