Australian Politics Forum - The schoolgirl courts the pimp

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48827
At my desk.

Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Reply #60 - Feb 28^th, 2012 at 10:14pm

PJ, just in case you are still confused about what that statement actually means, consider these two quotes from the report:

Quote:

This is not to deny that good fisheries management can make good use of various wellestablished
spatial techniques for the benefit of fish stocks. This issue is related to the
appropriate sustainable management of the marine estate and should be seen as synergistic
with the issues of spillover from marine parks discussed above.

Quote:

The Audit Panel
concluded that where there is adequate fishery management, as is clearly the case for
the majority of fisheries in NSW, it is misleading to espouse that there will be a large
fisheries benefit from spillover.

Can you see any contradiction at all between these statements above and the following generalisations:

Marine parks result in fisheries benefits regardless of how well managed the fishery is.

The audit panel recommends the use of marine parks.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male

Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Reply #61 - Feb 29^th, 2012 at 3:58pm

link=1281669694/60#60 date=1330431267]PJ, just in case you are still confused about what that statement actually means, consider these two quotes from the report:

Quote:

This is not to deny that good fisheries management can make good use of various wellestablished
spatial techniques for the benefit of fish stocks. This issue is related to the
appropriate sustainable management of the marine estate and should be seen as synergistic
with the issues of spillover from marine parks discussed above.

Quote:

The Audit Panel
concluded that where there is adequate fishery management, as is clearly the case for
the majority of fisheries in NSW, it is misleading to espouse that there will be a large
fisheries benefit from spillover.

Can you see any contradiction at all between these statements above and the following generalisations:

Spatial management does not equal marine parks FD. We have had spatial management for years before marine parks in NSW. Eg large area bans for trawling and recreational fishing havens. The second quote is far more specific and also rather inconvenient for marine park advocates.

Marine parks result in fisheries benefits regardless of how well managed the fishery is.

The audit panel recommends the use of marine parks.

These last two quotes do not appear to be in the Audit Report so I think you have some explaining to do.

Back to top

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male

Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Reply #62 - Feb 29^th, 2012 at 4:12pm

[link=1281669694/59#59 date=1330425330] Quote:

The theory of marine parks for fisheries management is that fish will build up in numbers in the no fishing zones and spillover and replenish the areas open to fishing - or have I missed something?

That is the 'catching more fish' bit. It has nothing to do with the other advantages like resilience and sustainability.

If there is no significant spillover then where is the benefit? Can you explain the mechanism for these advantages without it?

Quote:

Furthermore you can't just get away with an improvement is an improvement as a justification.

It wasn't a justification for anything. I was merely pointing out your tendency to read far too much into vauge generalisations. Why is it that you can point out the vagueness in my response but not in your original comment? Perhaps I should wrap it in more layers of convolution so we can waffle on all day without actually saying anything. Do we have to discuss this for ten pages for such a simple emssage to sink in?

I can point out more than vagueness on your park. You have made several outright lies on this topic.

Quote:

Any management initiative which reduces the ability of fisherman to catch fish will lead to an increase in fish numbers and by inference resiliance and sustainability.

True, but marine parks improve resilience through other important mechanisms that other initiatives do not replicate. Furthermore it does this, and increases fish stocks, without reducing the number of fish caught.

That's just your magical thinking on marine parks. There is absolutely no evidence for that.

Quote:

Can you quantify the extent of the benefit of your marine park examples? Should I ignore them because you can't?

You are missing the point PJ. I am not arguing for marine parks on the basis of a vague and meaningless comment by some committee regarding the extent of the benfit. You on the other hand are trying to read something into a vauge and meaningless comment.

Quote:

The so called principles were made up by you with no understanding of the issues

Not true. If you can go beyond the vague and meaningless I might be able to give a mroe specific response.

Quote:

and are invalidated by the audits finding that given that NSW fisheries are well managed there is likely to be no significant spillover effect from marine parks

Again, not true. Can you point out where I have rested the argument in favour of marine parks on the magnitude of the benefit? Can you point out how a vague anbd meaningless comment regarding the magnitude invaldiates anything? Your argument here is incredibly stupid. You are doing nothing more than saying we should not follow through on a good idea because it is not a 'very' good idea.

Welcome to the real World FD. It's about cost verses benefit. If the cost outweighs the benefit then it's not a good idea at all.

Quote:

One of the audits critcisms was that the parks and zoning were implimented with indecent haste. It would be somewhat hypocritical for them to turn around and do the same.

They have taken this to an absurd extreme. Did they go to the trouble of pointing out where the haste had any impact on the outcome and how a better outcome may have been achieved? Or was it only the haste itself and not the final outcome they were criticising? Should we conclude that they would be happy with the same outcome achieved at a glacial pace after funding endless highly paid committees that are too timid to recomend anything other than a committee?

Your being silly. They pointed out in great detail what is wrong with the zonings and the rationale behind them.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 29^th, 2012 at 6:02pm by pjb05 »

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48827
At my desk.

Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Reply #63 - Feb 29^th, 2012 at 6:13pm

pjb05 wrote on Feb 29^th, 2012 at 3:58pm:

link=1281669694/60#60 date=1330431267]PJ, just in case you are still confused about what that statement actually means, consider these two quotes from the report:

Quote:

This is not to deny that good fisheries management can make good use of various wellestablished
spatial techniques for the benefit of fish stocks. This issue is related to the
appropriate sustainable management of the marine estate and should be seen as synergistic
with the issues of spillover from marine parks discussed above.

Quote:

The Audit Panel
concluded that where there is adequate fishery management, as is clearly the case for
the majority of fisheries in NSW, it is misleading to espouse that there will be a large
fisheries benefit from spillover.

Can you see any contradiction at all between these statements above and the following generalisations:

Spatial management does not equal marine parks FD. We have had spatial management for years before marine parks in NSW. Eg large area bans for trawling and recreational fishing havens. The second quote is far more specific and also rather inconvenient for marine park advocates.

Marine parks result in fisheries benefits regardless of how well managed the fishery is.

The audit panel recommends the use of marine parks.

These last two quotes do not appear to be in the Audit Report so I think you have some explaining to do.

I was asking you whether you saw any contradictions between the first two quotes from the report and the two subsequent generalisations.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48827
At my desk.

Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Reply #64 - Feb 29^th, 2012 at 6:24pm

Quote:

If there is no significant spillover then where is the benefit? Can you explain the mechanism for these advantages without it?

Sure. As explained in the article on marine parks, marine parks are inherently more resilient than other methods because they become more effective rather than less as stocks get lower. They also do not undermine the fishery in the way minimum sizes do by reducing growth rates. Neither of these mechanisms rely on spillover. In fact resilience relies on some fish remaining within the no take zone - the BFFF argument.

Quote:

I can point out more than vagueness on your park. You have made several outright lies on this topic.

I am happy to explain where you have misunderstood. Obviously this requires more than merely making the accusation as I have idea what you are on about.

Quote:

That's just your magical thinking on marine parks. There is absolutely no evidence for that.

How would you recognise the evidence if you do not even understand the mechanism?

Quote:

Welcome to the real World FD. It's about cost verses benefit. If the cost outweighs the benefit then it's not a good idea at all.

Almost all of the costs you attribute to marine parks are imaginary or misattributed. The rest are insignificant.

Quote:

Your being silly. They pointed out in great detail what is wrong with the zonings and the rationale behind them.

No they didn't. One of the recommendations was for someone to explain the rationale to them. How can they criticise it if they don't even know what it is?

Can you find a criticism that goes beyond a vague generalisation that you have to misinterpret? So far every time you have managed to do that it is a criticism that I have already made myself, yet you seem to think it somehow undermines my argument.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male

Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Reply #65 - Feb 29^th, 2012 at 6:49pm

Marine parks result in fisheries benefits regardless of how well managed the fishery is.

The audit panel recommends the use of marine parks.

These last two quotes do not appear to be in the Audit Report so I think you have some explaining to do.
[/quote]

I was asking you whether you saw any contradictions between the first two quotes from the report and the two subsequent generalisations.

So what if they contradict? The last two you have made up and I don't expect you to agree with any criticism of marine parks.

Back to top

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male

Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Reply #66 - Feb 29^th, 2012 at 7:10pm

30503880] Quote:

If there is no significant spillover then where is the benefit? Can you explain the mechanism for these advantages without it?

Sure. As explained in the article on marine parks, marine parks are inherently more resilient than other methods because they become more effective rather than less as stocks get lower. They also do not undermine the fishery in the way minimum sizes do by reducing growth rates. Neither of these mechanisms rely on spillover. In fact resilience relies on some fish remaining within the no take zone - the BFFF argument.

Some fish always remain FD. The growth rates effect of fishing relies on the theory of genetic changes caused by fishing - which has been discounted in recent papers. You have taken a doubtful or a best highly contested theory and presented it as fact.

Quote:

I can point out more than vagueness on your park. You have made several outright lies on this topic.

I am happy to explain where you have misunderstood. Obviously this requires more than merely making the accusation as I have idea what you are on about.

You lied in your article when you said the main recommendation of the Audit was for more marine parks. You lied when you said the Fishing World article had said that the Audit recommended marine park be scrapped. You lied when you said that the Audit was hamstrung by limited terms of reference.

Quote:

That's just your magical thinking on marine parks. There is absolutely no evidence for that.

How would you recognise the evidence if you do not even understand the mechanism?

See above.

Quote:

Welcome to the real World FD. It's about cost verses benefit. If the cost outweighs the benefit then it's not a good idea at all.

Almost all of the costs you attribute to marine parks are imaginary or misattributed. The rest are insignificant.

I think that can be just added to the list of your barefaced lies.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48827
At my desk.

Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Reply #67 - Feb 29^th, 2012 at 8:14pm

pjb05 wrote on Feb 29^th, 2012 at 6:49pm:

Marine parks result in fisheries benefits regardless of how well managed the fishery is.

The audit panel recommends the use of marine parks.

These last two quotes do not appear to be in the Audit Report so I think you have some explaining to do.

I was asking you whether you saw any contradictions between the first two quotes from the report and the two subsequent generalisations.

So what if they contradict? The last two you have made up and I don't expect you to agree with any criticism of marine parks.
[/quote]

I am suggesting to you that they do not contradict. I hope that by attempting to explain the apparent contradiction you will realise how you have misunderstood the statements in the audit report.

Quote:

You have taken a doubtful or a best highly contested theory and presented it as fact.

The theory of natural selection is neither doubtful nor contested.

Quote:

I think that can be just added to the list of your barefaced lies.

You mean your misunderstandings? Lets start with the apparent contradictions I asked you about earlier. Hopefully by now you have understood that I am asking you whether you see any contradictions and you will be able to give an answer that makes sense.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male

Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Reply #68 - Mar 1^st, 2012 at 3:52pm

link=1281669694/65#65 date=1330505353]
Marine parks result in fisheries benefits regardless of how well managed the fishery is.

The audit panel recommends the use of marine parks.

These last two quotes do not appear to be in the Audit Report so I think you have some explaining to do.
[/quote]

I was asking you whether you saw any contradictions between the first two quotes from the report and the two subsequent generalisations.

They are just plain wrong FD.

So what if they contradict? The last two you have made up and I don't expect you to agree with any criticism of marine parks.
[/quote]

I am suggesting to you that they do not contradict. I hope that by attempting to explain the apparent contradiction you will realise how you have misunderstood the statements in the audit report.

What has this got to do with the 3 outright lies you told?

Quote:

You have taken a doubtful or a best highly contested theory and presented it as fact.

The theory of natural selection is neither doubtful nor contested.

Duh, were talking about as it applies to fisheries with respect to genetic changes effecting growth rates. The latest evidence is that is not a significant factor.

Quote:

I think that can be just added to the list of your barefaced lies.

You mean your misunderstandings?

No, lies.

Lets start with the apparent contradictions I asked you about earlier.

Why don't you address your lies instead of raising red herrings?

Hopefully by now you have understood that I am asking you whether you see any contradictions and you will be able to give an answer that makes sense.

The last two statements are incorrect - I suppose you term that a contradiction!

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 1^st, 2012 at 6:16pm by pjb05 »

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48827
At my desk.

Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Reply #69 - Mar 1^st, 2012 at 5:43pm

Because if you cannot understand plain english you are in no position to accuse others of lying about the science. You claim that the audit report comments somehow undermine my arguments, yet cannot point out a contradiction between what the report actually said and my position. This seems to be based on a misunderstnding of both my position and the report, but let's start with the report first.

After all, that is what this thread has been about for a few pages. You seem to have attempted to change the topic by making vague accusations of lying once it became obvious you misunderstood the audit report. No doubt once I pointed out that I was not lying you would change the topic back to your misunderstanding of the report and pretend the ast few pages didn't happen.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male

Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Reply #70 - Mar 1^st, 2012 at 6:18pm

freediver wrote on Mar 1^st, 2012 at 5:43pm:

Because if you cannot understand plain english you are in no position to accuse others of lying about the science. You claim that the audit report comments somehow undermine my arguments, yet cannot point out a contradiction between what the report actually said and my position. This seems to be based on a misunderstnding of both my position and the report, but let's start with the report first.

After all, that is what this thread has been about for a few pages. You seem to have attempted to change the topic by making vague accusations of lying once it became obvious you misunderstood the audit report. No doubt once I pointed out that I was not lying you would change the topic back to your misunderstanding of the report and pretend the ast few pages didn't happen.

Whatever, moron.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48827
At my desk.

Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Reply #71 - Mar 1^st, 2012 at 9:12pm

PJ, just in case you are still confused about what that statement actually means, consider these two quotes from the report:

Quote:

This is not to deny that good fisheries management can make good use of various wellestablished
spatial techniques for the benefit of fish stocks. This issue is related to the
appropriate sustainable management of the marine estate and should be seen as synergistic
with the issues of spillover from marine parks discussed above.

Quote:

The Audit Panel
concluded that where there is adequate fishery management, as is clearly the case for
the majority of fisheries in NSW, it is misleading to espouse that there will be a large
fisheries benefit from spillover.

Can you see any contradiction at all between these statements above and the following generalisations?

Marine parks result in fisheries benefits regardless of how well managed the fishery is.

The audit panel recommends the use of marine parks.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male

Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Reply #72 - Mar 2^nd, 2012 at 6:18am

The first generalisation is not true. You could do more harm than good to the fishery with marine parks. PS in case you don't understand 'fishery' is a term describing the fishing industry.

The second generalisation is misleading . The audit panel does not recommend marine parks as they are in NSW. If you make it general enough then everyone supports marine parks. We have had a few small one for years in NSW with little controversy. To traslate a support or ambivalence for a general idea to support for 36% of NSW waters being marine parks with a dodgy zoning system is just trickery on your part.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 48827 At my desk.	Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp Reply #73 - Mar 2^nd, 2012 at 8:28am This time I will post just the question in the hope you may see it. If you get confused about which statements it refers to, see the several previous posts where I have asked the same question. Can you see any contradiction at all between these statements above and the following generalisations?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male

Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Reply #74 - Mar 2^nd, 2012 at 3:52pm

freediver wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2012 at 8:28am:

This time I will post just the question in the hope you may see it. If you get confused about which statements it refers to, see the several previous posts where I have asked the same question.

Can you see any contradiction at all between these statements above and the following generalisations?

Yes, thanks for highlighting your rhetorical device. You have resorted to a loaded question, ie one designed to deceive/ advance your agenda. Seeing that the quotes and generalisations deal with different topics one can't really say that they contradict each other. No doubt then you will make the leap that the audit supports the generalisations. Rather amusing seeing that you failed to make a case prior to this trickery.

Back to top

IP Logged