JuneBug007

[Catch This]

What happened to June Bug? I just saw a post on another board by someone posting with that handle and when I checked out the properties of the name, JuneBug007 has been banned. What did I miss?

[Purdue1]

Do a search. In a nutshell...Junebug kept doing the same old thing. Then when people found they really couldn't argue with him using their own noggins they pulled out their aces:

1. Called him names.
2. Called him more names.
3. Finally the arguement of last resort came out..... certain posters started saying he should disclose who he is. Brandon got involved.....then it seems Junebugger cursed Brandon and/or threatened him in a bmail, and that was the last straw. Whamo he was banned.....along with Stanley Bros.

That was the untimely demise of the nemesis known as Junebuggie. Do a search, it is all there, kinda melodramatic though. It might be better winter reading. Sure gives you some insight into characters on both sides of the issue though.

[Matt]

purdue1 originally wrote:
Do a search. In a nutshell...Junebug kept doing the same old thing. Then when people found they really couldn't argue with him using their own noggins they pulled out their aces:

1. Called him names.
2. Called him more names.
3. Finally the arguement of last resort came out..... certain posters started saying he should disclose who he is. Brandon got involved.....then it seems Junebugger cursed Brandon and/or threatened him in a bmail, and that was the last straw. Whamo he was banned.....along with Stanley Bros.

That was the untimely demise of the nemesis known as Junebuggie.


the character using the handle junebug007 was Niels Moore who represents commercial fishing when they pay him. Moore was asked repeatedly by the administator of this board, Brandon, to reveal an identity if he was going to argue a hugely unpopular position, and he would not. THAT was his demise.

[Purdue1]

Matt originally wrote:
purdue1 originally wrote:
Do a search. In a nutshell...Junebug kept doing the same old thing. Then when people found they really couldn't argue with him using their own noggins they pulled out their aces:

1. Called him names.
2. Called him more names.
3. Finally the arguement of last resort came out..... certain posters started saying he should disclose who he is. Brandon got involved.....then it seems Junebugger cursed Brandon and/or threatened him in a bmail, and that was the last straw. Whamo he was banned.....along with Stanley Bros.

That was the untimely demise of the nemesis known as Junebuggie.


the character using the handle junebug007 was Niels Moore who represents commercial fishing when they pay him. Moore was asked repeatedly by the administator of this board, Brandon, to reveal an identity if he was going to argue a hugely unpopular position, and he would not. THAT was his demise.


Of course Junnie was representing the interests of the commercial fishing sector....obviously Junnie was a force of more then one person... However, I thought his demise was threatening or cursing the administrator of this board?...That is what we were told. Matt, were you told differently? Again, do a search and read what happened....It is all there....Why Stanley got banned is beyond me. Again, it truly shows the character of both sides.

[Purdue1]

sheesh

[Purdue1]

You really got me thinking on this one. While the coffee is brewing thought I would explain one further response.

I enjoy coming to this board to read altering opinions. I actually like to read the "unpopular opinion". I have always enjoyed and many times learned from Junebugs posts, as well as posts from Whitehorse, Sea Gristle, scottye, Sandtiger, Reds, Chumbuckett, Matt....and many others. Nothing is learned by everyone beating the same drum. Something is learned by people saying "hey, wait a minute.....what you said sounds good but doesn't make much sense?" A little heated debate is good too. I think there is much to be learnt from an "unpopular opinion". I mean really, if you only listen to one side of an issue you aren't much the wiser.........sooooo I sure hope that people aren't banned for "unpopular opinions". If so there are many more that will need to be ousted. and....this personal thing that you have with Niels, seems to get in the way of your thoughtful and logical posts. .....and in the end.....this website says....in black and white....that you can post in anonymity. It doesn't say that people delivering "unpopular messages" must state their name but those delivering popular messages do not.

[scotty80]

purdue1 originally wrote:

I enjoy coming to this board to read altering opinions. I actually like to read the "unpopular opinion". I have always enjoyed and many times learned from Junebugs posts, as well as posts from Whitehorse, Sea Gristle, scottye, Sandtiger, Reds, Chumbuckett, Matt....and many others. Nothing is learned by everyone beating the same drum. Something is learned by people saying "hey, wait a minute.....what you said sounds good but doesn't make much sense?" A little heated debate is good too. I think there is much to be learnt from an "unpopular opinion". I mean really, if you only listen to one side of an issue you aren't much the wiser.........


Well said purdue. I also learned a lot form junebug. Facts and how to twist the facts. It's important to see what we are up against. He/she/them ain't some ol redneck in VA, they have top guns behind them. On at least one point I agreed with junebug and not with some of the orgs I belong to.
In hind site, perhaps the thread should have been moved to this board? I've learned to keep the political stuff on this board. Some users hate to see it anywhere else.

Good find reds, interesting.

[Matt]

purdue wrote:

Of course Junnie was representing the interests of the commercial fishing sector....obviously Junnie was a force of more then one person... However, I thought his demise was threatening or cursing the administrator of this board?...That is what we were told. Matt, were you told differently? Again, do a search and read what happened....It is all there....Why Stanley got banned is beyond me. Again, it truly shows the character of both sides.



Through the course of Junebug's self-inflicted removal, I don't believe Brandon ever confirmed an identity, or multiple identities. I also think the record will show, if anybody cares to dredge it up, that Brandon froze the Junebug account because that user was taking an unpopular viewpoint without disclosing an identity. FWIW, multiple IPs does not prove multiple users.

I took exception with Junebug's argument when he began arguing that removing menhaden would benefit the bay, an argument Niels Moore made in public again this weekend.

[scotty80]

Matt originally wrote:
I took exception with Junebug's argument when he began arguing that removing menhaden would benefit the bay, an argument Niels Moore made in public again this weekend.


Do tell...

[Matt]

Subject: Ecological role of menhaden
From: "Niels Moore" <Seafoodwizard@AOL.COM>
Date: Sat, June 3, 2006 6:15 am
To: FISHFOLK@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Priority: Normal
Options: View Full Header | View Printable Version

I would question the actual ecological "benefits" provided by menhaden in
the Bay for several reasons, and I would be interested in input from some of the
biological experts on FF.


First, while it is true that, as filter feeders, menhaden consume
phytoplankton and detritus, generally from the upper- to middle- water column, their
role is more accurately described as one of a "compactor" of these items. As
is likely the case with the majority of herbivores, menhaden simply digest,
then expel the vast majority of this plant-based food directly back into the
water in the form of urine and pelletized fecal matter. Past studies have
shown that the migration of large schools of menhaden into relatively confined
water bodies can result in significantly higher levels of ammonia within the
water column. Of even greater relevance to ongoing Bay problems, I believe
menhaden fecal matter is not bouyant, and therefore sinks to the bottom where it
subsequently decomposes. What effect would this have on dissolved oxygen
content in the deeper- to middle- levels of the Bay? Between excreting ammonia
and compacting N and P directly to the Bay bottom, would the immigration of
a large menhaden school reduce eutriphication or actually accelerate it?

Second, the absolute amount of nitrogen and phosphorus actually "removed" by
menhaden from the Bay system is likely relatively minute compared to the
total influx of these "pollutants". For starters, on a short term basis, it
would appear that N and P are actually removed from the Bay in one of three
ways:

(1) A menhaden emigrates out of the Bay and doesn't return;
(2) A menhaden is consumed by a predator (or scavenger) which itself, in
turn, is harvested and removed from the Bay; or
(3) A menhaden is directly harvested by man.

In sum, therfore, it could very well be that N and P levels in the Bay could
actually be higher (albeit likely marginally) than they are now, if the
various commercial menhaden fisheries (as well as recreational fisheries for
predators) did not ultimately extract them and their nutrients from this system.
Regardless, the dry weight of N and P actually contained in each pound of
menhaden harvest is relatively small, as with most critters, menhaden are
comprised mostly of water. In contrast, according to the Chesapeake Bay Program,
approximately 370 million pounds of N and 26 million pounds of P reached the
Bay during the 2005 water year.

Niels Moore
Menhaden Resource Council
_www.menhaden.org_ (http://www.menhaden.org)

__________________________

Almost the same lame rationalization he gave here just before I joked at how similar this was to the rationale Hitler gave for killing Jews. Personally I think Niels must be having a hard time looking at himself in the mirror to keep working this angle, but it doesn't matter...he's a prostitute for the industry.

[captaingeorge]

You b!tch at him when he's here and b!tch about him after he's gone. Now you call him names (prostitute), knowing he's banned and can't respond. Cowardly, low-life move, IMHO.[sad]

[Matt]

captaingeorge originally wrote:
You b!tch at him when he's here and b!tch about him after he's gone. Now you call him names (prostitute), knowing he's banned and can't respond. Cowardly, low-life move, IMHO.[sad]


Hey George, did you get a job revising history for Omega too? Since you don't know what you're talking about, let me clue you in. I didn't ban him, and I didn't ask for him to be banned either. Personally I think he got himself banned, by behaving like an idiot, but thats just my opinion. I believe I told him I would only "debate" him on Brandon's frontpage if he disclosed his identity. He chose not to disclose, and I chose to minimize my comments to the stuff that summed up my feelings. I stand by the word "prostitute." If it had half a nut, he would disclose who he is, come back here and take credit for his idiotic procommerce diatribe.

[Purdue1]

http://evula.org/dragoon/pics/ubb/diggin.jpg

[captaingeorge]

Matt originally wrote:
I stand by the word "prostitute."
Fair enough. I stand by the word "Coward".

[Catch This]

Geez, Look what I started. I only asked what happened to him. I missed all of the original hoopla on the other boards. Sorry to cause you guys grief. I wanted to ask him what he thought was going to happen relative to the CAP when ASMFC meets again.

[Purdue1]

You gotta admit....it is kinda funny. I use to get a real kick out of reading through those Jbug threads.

[Matt]

captaingeorge originally wrote:
Matt originally wrote:
I stand by the word "prostitute."
Fair enough. I stand by the word "Coward".


And I stand by the term "clueless."

You might have a point if I had not addressed Junebug Moore on Saturday, when he reposted his "save the bay, kill more menhaden" theory on the fishfolk list. He, of course, declined to support his claim.

[mdc]

Some do not post here because they fear for their anonymity. It would be similar to an electronic board at your work. Would you really speak your mind if your views could be printed out at your next evaluation?

Some monitor this board to see what is being said in the fishery management realm. To get the pulse as it were. But will not post because their "office policy" will not allow it. Much like the board Matt is referring too.

Others are simply here to get better fishing tips.

[grin]

Some sites allow that anonymity, others do not. Those that do have serious debate of the issues.

Those that don't. Do not. As always it is the Admin's choice

[scotty80]

Can somebody clue me in on the fishfolk list?

Catch, Junebug predicted that ASMFC would walk away with a black eye, no cap, and no industry supported research. If I remember correctly?

There is a fine line between name calling and comparing. Prostitution is the oldest industry in the world. Prostitute vs lobbyist? Perhaps different words could have been used but, that is up to the poster.

Don't forget, MDDNR, VADNR, Governors, Omega, etc. Are reading this stuff also! Hi guys and Gals!

[Matt]

Thanks Scotty. I'm still not sure how I'm the coward. I was asked to post something, and I posted it. The fact that I don't care much for spindoctors is no secret, and neither is my identity. What is cowardly is taking an unpopular position on a fishing message board, and do it anonymously. I mean its one thing to anonymously support an unpopular position in one or two posts, but Junebug went on and on for paragraph after paragraph, day after day, on this board and on the main board... like he was intent on rubbing recs' nose in a doubledecker shiet sandwich, served on his anonymous platter.

Junebug could come back at any time and post his beliefs. I think Brandon made it clear that when Mr Moore was ready to crawl out of his hole, he would be reinstated.

[TIMOTOOLE]

matt--

im hearing you on the whole annonimity thing with junebugger, but just for the record -- who are you exactly?????? i enjoy your posts but like they say whats good for the goose is good for the gander........

[Matt]

TIMOTOOLE originally wrote:
matt--

im hearing you on the whole annonimity thing with junebugger, but just for the record -- who are you exactly?????? i enjoy your posts but like they say whats good for the goose is good for the gander........


In my mind its not a goose and gander thing. Identity is relevant when you're pushing an agenda, particularly an unpopular agenda. But I really don't care if spindoctors identify themselves here. Its not my website. I don't make the rules. 99% of the people who post here are anonymous to me, and I'm fine with that. If a spindoctor wants to push their agenda anonymously, I might tell'em what I think, but I'm not gonna spend alot of time going back and forth like we're in some kind of controlled debate. Since you asked about me, I'm just a concerned citizen possessing no affiliation with any kind of fishing or conservation related group, agency, or industry. Thats all anybody needs to know. My email address is available in my profile.

[Capt Frank]

I just caught up on this one. Anyone that believes filter feeders should be removed from the Bay or the natural eco system, better get ready to shell out multiple billions of dollars, maybe more in clean up fees. We get the filter feeders work for very little in capital layout. I'd have a very hard time believing that a degreed scientist would defend an undefendable position.

[rbr]

reds originally wrote:

Purdue

I believe that since the Junebug issue the "Terms of Service" have been revised. Don't know what's legally binding on those who do not subscribe. Nor whether it let's the site off the hook when the crazies obtain your name from this site and possibly do harm to you or your family.

In consideration of your use of the Service, you agree to: (a) provide true, accurate, current and complete information about yourself as prompted by the Service's registration form (such information being the "Registration Data") and (b) maintain and promptly update the Registration Data to keep it true, accurate, current and complete. If you provide any information that is untrue, inaccurate, not current or incomplete, or Tidal Fish has reasonable grounds to suspect that such information is untrue, inaccurate, not current or incomplete, Tidal Fish has the right to suspend or terminate your account and refuse any and all current or future use of the Service (or any portion thereof). Tidal Fish is concerned about the safety and privacy of all its users.




I would imagine Brandon was advised to do this by his lawyer.
And would be foolish not to follow the advice.

bert