[rockworm]

Originally Posted by albert_dao

Whoa, exactly how I wanted to start my afternoon

Might have been worse. You may have read it in the morning.

Originally Posted by albert_dao

No, I was attacking the advice. Previous poster mentioned that they"read up" the 100 gallon rule. I'm criticizing their source, not them. And here you go: buy a small one, 50 gallons. Done. Got a big one? Get a bigger tank. Adjust your future livestock purchases in accordance with the personality of your fish. Take care of water changes and enjoy your fish for the next 20 years.

You criticized the poster for providing his findings. Where are yours?

Here are a few sites with their suggestion of a minimum tank:

http://www.fishchannel.com/fish-spec...ow-tang-2.aspx "Keeping a yellow tang requires a very large tank (125 gallons or more)"

http://www.liveaquaria.com/product/p...92&pcatid=392: " Minimum Tank Size: 100 gallons"

http://www.fishlore.com/Profiles-YellowTang.htm "Aquarium Size : 55 gallon minimum but will do much better in larger tanks - think 90 gallons plus to allow for lots of swimming room. "

http://freefishfacts.com/the-yellow-tang/ "As such it is not recommendable to keep the Yellow Tang in an aquarium tank with a capacity below 60 gallons / 225 litres of water."

In support of a 50g:

http://animal-world.com/encyclo/marine/tangs/yellow.php " A minimum 50 gallon (189 liters)."

http://reefcorner.com/reef-database-...ma-flavescens/ "Yellow tangs are very good reef tank inhabitants for larger tanks of about 50 gallons and larger."

and finally from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow..._the_aquarium: "A 75-gallon tank or larger is better for a single specimen, while an aquarium of 100 gallons or 60" or more in length is ideal." (I do not consider wiki as an exhaustive source. Just wanted to show another opinion.)

My point is that you have criticized someone because they "read" about a tank size. I have no doubt that the individual did read it. However, you provided no position other than to attack a recommendation.

Your reply to me includes a recommendation. I suggest that it should have been included in your original post with respect to the recommendation. The tank sizes on the aforementioned sites would hopefully allow for comfort as the fish grows. I may not put a tang in a 50, but I have not had a tank of that size. Even a 55 comes in a 4 foot length which may be sufficient, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by albert_dao

... Are you attacking my point or just attacking me? Because you've discounted my analogy using some pretty flimsy mental gymnastics.

I don't see the purpose of your point and I am criticizing it. A cat is not a fish. A fish is not a dog, etc. So what is the purpose of your original analogy? Every fish is different? It does not add anything to your original comments, just like mine adds nothing.

Originally Posted by albert_dao

I'm not sure what your angle is here. Seems like it lends credibility to my argument.

If hyperbole provides credibility, then yes, you have a credible argument. You provide an analogy of dog vs real estate requirement. Your numbers are ridiculous. It just makes your opinion look a little foolish. I provided an example of a more realistic argument.

Originally Posted by albert_dao

Okay! Glad you've preemptively disqualified anyone with anything less than a 6' tank from ever being able to properly care for their fish in a humane fashion. And sadly, that's not just you.♥

Please show me where I said that a 6' tank is necessary. You cannot. I said that I am happy with my stocking level. Others will do different. I have had a yellow tang in a 90 and have no problems with this. In my opinion most 4 foot tanks are adequate.

In conclusion, your original reply to the minimum 100g tank was nothing more than a rant. People who rant, instead of providing reasoned arguments, are tiresome. I will rant about all things that are wrong, unless I agree that they are right.