$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Oct 12, 2006 15:03:10 GMT -5
And, conveniently enough, I bet you do not have pictures of this event.
I would also like to know your definition of "current" as opposed to mine. I would imagine the current you are talking about is the same one that pushes little boys wooden boats along the shore as they jog along. I am not talking about these wispy currents. Listen to some of these guys talk and its like salmons are battling the roaring rapids.
Another thing I dont understand...waterfalls aside, why were the salmon supposedly jumping out of the water? To check out the view? I think someone may be getting Punked after all....us, from you.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Oct 12, 2006 15:10:41 GMT -5
Ahh, well, I misunderstood the point. I thought the contention was that salmon do not swim upstream....period....when if fact, they do.
As far as the leaping salmon fighting the roaring rapids....I don't know...I have no opinion or expertise to lend any insight on just how strong salmon are and how much current is too much current for a salmon to navigate against.
As far as the leaping is concerned, many freshwater fish, including salmon, trout, bass, often leap dramatically out of the water...even dead calm water...as a hunting tactic, ambushing insects that float on the water's surface. Any trout fisherman will tell you that they see this all the time in the early AM feeding hours. But then again, I don't know how that relates to fast moving water, as insects are obviously not lazily hanging out on the surface of a fast-moving stream.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Oct 12, 2006 15:15:03 GMT -5
Ahh, well, I misunderstood the point. I thought the contention was that salmon do not swim upstream....period....when if fact, they do
At one point or another, EVERY fish swims "upstream." The fighting fish in my bulbous tank swims upstream when I carry the tank to the sink to clean and lean it too far to one side. He'll scramble against the flow of the water towards the leaned side.
I will tell you what salmon do and do not do. Jump out of the water....ok, I will buy that. Jump up waterfalls? Never. No reason to, for one thing. Swim upstream? Not really. Swim "against a current" - possibly, as long as the current is not much more than a strong ripple.
There is NO REASON for them to "swim upstream." They simply ride the current to wherever it is still enough for them to do what they have to do. If that means after they run into a current they ride along with it forvever westward, thats what they do. They can not fight strong tides.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Oct 12, 2006 15:23:42 GMT -5
They do. If we are talking about a salmon, on its way to breed, and the journey it takes, overall the journey in its entirety follows a path opposite the direction that the body of water naturally flows. That's indisputable scientific fact based simply on where these salmon start from (the ocean) in relation to where the salmon eggs are found. Now, if you want refute just how far that journey goes depending on how fast of a current these fish are physically capable of swimming against, that's fine. So while generalizing a salmon's journey to breed as "swimming upstream" may be embellish as to just how difficult and "heroic" this journey may be, it is not inaccurate.
|
|
|
Post by kingdzbws on Oct 12, 2006 15:58:02 GMT -5
The 'current' was pretty strong. Not up a waterfall. Not a roaring rapid, but a swift moving current that would challange a man who attempted to cross, and sweep away junior and his wooden boat.
And photos or not, I saw 'em with my own eyes.....and sober at that.
As for the jumping fish; Marlin and Swordfish fully breach the water all the time.
M
PS I've missed this silly banter.......
|
|
|
Post by grover on Oct 12, 2006 20:32:00 GMT -5
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Oct 13, 2006 7:13:11 GMT -5
I am in no way disputing jumping fish, salmon included. However, I am adamently disputing fish jumping up waterfalls, especially ones so "conveniently" stocked with photographers and bears with their mouths open. As for the salmon that you viewed "swimming upstream" - well, who knows how far they were going. Their home may have been that stretch of water you were standing aside and their "swimming upstream" may have been the normal actions of a fish, just swimming around. For all we know as you were turning around to walk away those same fish were on their way back "downstream." Its probably a constant process in their mundane day to day existence. They are swimming. Its what fish do.
|
|
|
Post by 9 on Oct 13, 2006 8:30:10 GMT -5
The bears with their mouths open are a union thing.
|
|
|
Post by Chrissy on Oct 16, 2006 15:00:47 GMT -5
SEAshells. Key word - SEA. So the answer to your questions is no. The clam thing came up last time and was tossed out, just like you would not count a tree that has been cut for kindling. Ah! You got me on that one. But then, I will have to argue that clam and turtle shells should count. They come form the SEA.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Oct 16, 2006 15:02:40 GMT -5
Clam shells DO count. Turtle shells, no. How many turtle shells do you see laying around anyway? Come on now.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Oct 17, 2006 12:27:31 GMT -5
Now I'm the one who needs clarification. Are we only considering shells that have made their way to shore, out of the water, and off of the living creature they once housed?
So all of the living clams, oysters, mussels, and other sea crustaceans currently living underwater with shells on, DON'T COUNT?
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Oct 17, 2006 14:08:39 GMT -5
Correct. They dont count. From the beginning I said nothing underwater counts, as it can not be seen from something/someone hovering over land. And no, "shallow water" where you can just make out what may be a "shell" does not count either.
|
|
|
Post by Chrissy on Oct 17, 2006 21:16:42 GMT -5
Then, you should only be able to count dead trees.
|
|
|
Post by kingdzbws on Oct 18, 2006 13:27:27 GMT -5
Dead Mollusks.....Live Trees.......Trees still lose.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Oct 18, 2006 13:46:03 GMT -5
Then, you should only be able to count dead trees
I did NOT say that live mullosks, clams, and all that on the land did not count. I said that all of them underwater do not count. Considering they spend most of their time underwater, they dont fit what I am asking. If there is a live clam on the surface of the Earth at the time of the count, it can be tallied.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Oct 18, 2006 13:58:22 GMT -5
Why should you only be able to count dead trees?
The comparison is seashells (attached to alive creatures or abandoned) visible from the earth's surface vs. trees on the earth's surface. The earth's surface parameter is what I needed clarification on, but I don't think "alive or dead" status for either object matters.
|
|
|
Post by Chrissy on Oct 18, 2006 21:22:18 GMT -5
Then, you should only be able to count dead trees I did NOT say that live mullosks, clams, and all that on the land did not count. I said that all of them underwater do not count. Considering they spend most of their time underwater, they dont fit what I am asking. If there is a live clam on the surface of the Earth at the time of the count, it can be tallied. Then we agree, turtle shells count?
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Oct 18, 2006 22:02:32 GMT -5
Yes. Like that makes a difference. In my entire life I have never seen a turtle shell just laying there. And the turtle population that can be seen on the surface at any one time is not enough to sway numbers either.
|
|
|
Post by elliejay21 on Oct 19, 2006 4:58:36 GMT -5
I don't remember, what was the verdict on telephone poles? They used to be trees...
Can the seashell be inside someone's house, like those people who keep a pile of shells in the bathroom to decorate? What about shells that are in the dumpster ouside the seafood restaurants? They aren't underwater, but you cannot exactly see them.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Oct 19, 2006 7:10:35 GMT -5
Hey, Laura, cut the crap. What part of actual tree do you not understand. You want to count branches on the ground too, or petrified wood in the museum? Those dont count. Nor do shells inside the bathroom. Shells outside as decorations I can live with, but enough with this "shells visible at the top of the dumpster" stuff. Shells not visible (ie - under a heap in the dumpster or under a heap in a garden) do not count as HAS BEEN EXPLAINED 1000 times, they are not visible from the air.
|
|
|
Post by 9 on Oct 19, 2006 7:49:50 GMT -5
Baseball bats used to be trees. Wanna count those, too?
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 19, 2006 8:03:16 GMT -5
Seashells brought inside count. That's ridiculous.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Oct 19, 2006 8:06:45 GMT -5
They do NOT count. Its what is visible from the sky. Stop trying to change it since you know after a few pages of this I am right and the Earth surface is dotted with more visible trees than seashells.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 19, 2006 8:11:15 GMT -5
So that means trees that are invisible due to other, taller trees don't count.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Oct 19, 2006 8:12:50 GMT -5
No, as someone walking along the surface to see them could see them.
A full shell obscured a bit by a larger shell that has washed on top of it on the beach would count too.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 19, 2006 8:19:08 GMT -5
Someone walking in a house would see a shell brought inside. What if you put a blanket over a shell?
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Oct 19, 2006 8:21:38 GMT -5
Balls, stop it. Seriously, or I will lock up the thread for good.
One more time - visible from the sky. Outside. A blanket over a shell obscures it, it does not count, just as a tree with a greenhouse thing over it wouldnt.
The numbers you are bringing up are not enough to change the argument one way or another, so drop it.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 19, 2006 8:34:12 GMT -5
Then trees obscured by a shadow of another tree can't count. They are not visible from the sky. What's next--limiting this so that beaches don't count?
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Oct 19, 2006 8:45:06 GMT -5
I am talking about some sort of thing that hovers over visible surface to see all. You think a SHELL is visible from the sky??? Enough already. If you have valid theories to add why you think there are more shells on the visible surface of the Earth than trees, by all means, continue. But stop with this inane garbage just trying to be funny.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Oct 19, 2006 8:48:18 GMT -5
And houses have windows and doors. Your hovercraft could easily see the shells inside. And yes, a shell is visible from the sky. Satelites can read license plates. They can see shells.
|
|