Steve S- Would it not be more reckless to not test boundaries of a procedure? I know of a whole lot of procedures that can be performed in lab conditions that dont work for real-world-joe. If I performed this like a lab, than how can it be usefully related to the setup that real-world-joe (ultimately the person who needs to do this if we are to make a differnce in natural anemone collection) will have to work with?
In my field of engine design, I cant release a part without testing to destruction. This can often double R&D costs for the part, but the part is worthless with out the stress testing, and the limits being found. You cant sell a part and say, umm, its good, umm, be good with it. People need to know cyclic stress and strain and yeild stregnth and work hardening and a bunch of other variables to know that they can provide an eniroment in acceptable boundaries for the part, or procedure.
Am I a mad scientist? Hell yes, and without mad scientists pushing beyond your comfortable status quo mundane bullsh*t, we wouldnt be keeping corals in saltwater aquariums, or comunicateing via the internet, or even typing on computers or watching TV (the latter would be to our bennifit).
I have been through this before many times in engine design and modification. First, the closed minded status-quo lovers, who always seem to be the most vocal, make all sorts of unfounded slander. Later a couple people try it out and get the same results, generally acting like it always happened as a fluke. Then, months or a year later, it becomes common place, and the same close minded status-quo lovers adopt it into their little minds view of what things are acceptable and good and what things are not, and begin to chant its praises like they have been into it from the grassroots of development.
It used to REALLY make me hot years ago, but now its not something that bothers me anymore, its just the way things are.
Fortunately the flameing bares no effect on the sucess of the procedure
.
