DISCUSBOOK01 - new publication on Discus & Angelfishes

[Heiko Bleher]

Hi,

finally I have a moment while holding Amanda in my arms.

Contrary to what Mark and Philippe write, I have always been a very correct person and never lied – was educated this way – but I have one error, and that is : I trust people, and I should not. Yes this has been the error of my life (my mother always told me and I paid for it - with all I once possessed - every house and even my retirement money...).
I only answer the above accusations here because of correctness, but I will not write on this topic again, even if anyone of you all feels contrary, then that is (for me) your own problem, you have to live with.
First in regards to photos (Mark and Philippe):
I wrote already: "But there are people on this forum who do not like me, some who do not do their home work ie Mark, I have a letter from Allgayer, and the late president Jean-Claude Nourissat, that all photographers will be asked prior publication and get their consent, ..."
And the funny thing here is, that Philippe now and here confirms the error the AFC made and all this mess Mark is carrying on now for 20plus years, and that it was caused by the negligence of AFC - maybe by Philippe himself (who possibly now wants to look good and denies it, as he was there with the first meeting, if I recall). But I think it was Allgayer, as he was the secretary and in charge.
Philippe writes here: "Nourissat and Allgayer asked me to write to EACH photographer to ask them if they want to give their pictures FREE of charge AFTER the publication ...". I do NOT BELIEVE Jean-Claude has asked you ONLY AFTER the publication to write, I am sure (knowing Jean-Claude very well, he was a extreme correct person), he has asked you because he also saw what had happened (from the complaints, also from me), and that is why he told you (probably again) to write also AFTER AFC's negligence according to our clear agreement.
We had a meeting all together PRIOR to the publication of the AFC Atlas, and it was VERY CLEAR, that the colour-separations can ONLY BE USED AFTER THE RESPECTIVE PHOTOGRAPHERS HAVE BEEN CONSULTED AND GAVE THEIR OK, except for mine, for which I had given green light. At this meeting was Jean-Claude, Allgayer and I do not remember who else, I did not know all the other AFC board members, but I believe Philippe was there. And this agreement was made clearly PRIOR any publication and it was not fulfilled, and I am to blame but not those who caused this mess! And yes Philippe, they talk bad about me since, except for those who finally were paid by AFC. Why did Mark not get his money?
And Mark, yes I made an error, the one of my life errors "trusting people". And it happened because Jean-Claude knowing about my work with all the cichlids, for the book to be published at TFH (which was never done), had asked me at the time if I could not help them for their publication and as I could never say "no" to him, such a gentle person (I did everything for him and he for me). But at the time I was in the middle of litigations in Paris, Singapore, London, Trenton and Frankfurt against one of the worst criminals this hobby has ever seen, defending myself against his worldwide lies (which seem mark wants to carry on here and has some supporters). I told Jean-Claude that I have the cichlid colour-separations but they need to get the authorisations, except for mine. he wanted the in the respective groups but i had no time because of the above, to sort them out (6000plus), they must do it. And after the agreement I handed them over - all of them. And that was my errors. In this you are correct, but in nothing else what you claim. But tell us: WHY have you not claimed these few of your photos at AFC to be paid for? Or do you want me to pay them¡ for those they have used and never me? Just tell me and I send you the 50 or 100 dollars, as it could hardly be more, for the few Cyprichromis species and an Astatotilapia sp. "Rock Kribensis" ...
Cichla: I have now, for nearly 20 years, published (sponsored and managed) a very respectful scientific journal - the only in the fish world in full colours free of charge to any scientist and peer reviewed with top ichthyologists on the editorial board and the prime gobiid-expert of this planet as scientific editor - and there the diagnostic characters of species are given in detail. This is, I am sure you know, how it is done correctly in ichthyology. I am happy to help hobbyists around the world (and probably do more then anyone on this forum), and it is appreciated in nearly 100 countries and on hundreds of forums (also when I inform people about a new publication - except here and in one or two more forums - which only want to see this as an advertisement, but never I notice the many others doing it), but I do no diagnostic on forums, sorry.

RM: I never refuse to expose your findings probably more then anyone else concerning fresh and brackish water fishes, but not on forums. On forums I help with advice, I answer aquarium concerned question, I do species ID from pictures placed (as good as possible), I give suggestions to biotope correct decorations, etc., etc., I think this is the purpose of a forum! NOT TAXONOMY (many do not want to use the correct one anyhow and believe they know better than ichthyologists, or they are not interested in it). I have in no place said it is a "new species" and I do not try to promote my book, firstly I do not need to, and secondly my understanding of such an information is, that it might be helpful to any serious hobbyist and nature lover. (Just for your information we sold over 1000 copies in less then a week, and you think I need to promote it? There are more then enough good people who know and appreciate my work - around the globe. Otherwise why do I get every year to be invited for over 50 lectures & seminars on every continent. And if I have to promote a book I do it there...)
I have said " like all the 9 natural angelfish variants (species) in detail". Did you see this or do you want to read it only to argue? And "There is a very large article on the real P. altum (demonstrating that it has never been bred before)." I wrote and you think that a "naked statement" can be given here in two or more lines. If so, please tell me why science still publishes hundreds o pages so to speak to describe a single species? And a 'new discovery' can imply many things, yes like a variant of possibly a already known species, or a new distribution (what is also there), and more.
And to PHILIPPE AND ALL OTHERS HERE TALKING BAD ABOUT ME :
Nothing to add.... this is the truth ! I you like it or not.
Heiko Bleher

[Mark Smith]

Isn't it odd that you cannot answer why you gave my photos (and I'm sure many other photographers photos too) to the French and the Germans in the first place? Everyone who sold you their photos (some of which have not yet been paid in over 20 years) did so only for your atlas. What made you think that you could just parcel them out to whomever you wanted?
Who ever heard of a publisher doing such a dishonest thing?

And, what made you think that you could steal photos from TFH, such as photos of the xanthic Ctenochromis benthicola, photos taken by the Brichards back in the 1970s, and which have always been the property of TFH. I remember seeing them in the African cichlid proofs of your "upcoming" freshwater fish atlas you let me see years ago at one of the American Cichlid Association's international cichlid conferences in Florida. And, no refund yet on my $175 I paid for your "upcoming" freshwater fish atlas over 20 years ago.

Just in case you didn't read it, here it is again:

"When I sold you my photos for your "atlas" over 20 years ago, the photos were only for your atlas. You never said to me that you would parcel them out to various cichlid organizations for publication in their works, and you certainly never asked me for my permission to do so. You are a very dishonest and corrupt person. This valid topic appears to be "nonesense" to you, because you refuse to acknowledge that you were wrong in your actions regarding my photos. Are you even capable of realising that you never seem to be wrong in your own eyes? Any reasonably sane person is able to understand this."

Apparently, you continue not to be capable of realising just how dishonest and corrupt you have been and continue to be.

[Rico Morgenstern]

RM: I never refuse to expose your findings

Not my findings, yours! (certainly simply a typing error, so no problem...).

On forums I help with advice, I answer aquarium concerned question, I do species ID from pictures placed (as good as possible), I give suggestions to biotope correct decorations, etc., etc., I think this is the purpose of a forum!NOT TAXONOMY (many do not want to use the correct one anyhow and believe they know better than ichthyologists, or they are not interested in it).

Strange! Different topics, different policies?

http://www.cichlidae.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=8371

http://www.cichlidae.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=6862

http://www.cichlidae.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=9252

Be that as it may, but please note that there are different forums, and in this particular one we discuss also taxonomic matters, species delimitation, etc.. If you check some of such topics you will see that many people are truly interested in these things. However, If you do not whish to contribute to taxonomic discussions, you should make sure not to bring up such questions, otherwise it can always happen that someone asks them to you! And this usually in order to get information rather than an explanation why no answer will be given...

I have said " like all the 9 natural angelfish variants (species) in detail". Did you see this or do you want to read it only to argue? And "There is a very large article on the real P. altum (demonstrating that it has never been bred before)." I wrote and you think that a "naked statement" can be given here in two or more lines. If so, please tell me why science still publishes hundreds o pages so to speak to describe a single species?

Okay, on second reading I may (or may not, as it can be seen in several ways) have overinterpreted your statement "..9 angelfish variants (species)...", but such a revolutionary claim like the true P. altum has never been bred, rendering all who have identified this species before in error, requires an explanation (i.e. some kind of abstract of your article). There are no hundreds of pages necessary, not for a scientific description of a new species, and all the more not for a little pertinent information.

This is my last attempt to make this topic a factual discussion on cichlids. I can nothing say to the 'parallel discussion' carried on here, and which has so much poison in it. It's not my problem and it's especially not at all my busines, but, and this is for all who are involved, I think issues like this should be discussed in private, per lawyer or the devil may know whatever. But they do certainly not belong here and may even do harm to our forum!

All the best!
(and, Heiko, the best wishes for your little Amanda!)

RM

[Heiko Bleher]

Hi RM,

and I really am only answering to you out of correctness. I do not have these problems anywhere else and I can only think of having them here because fishes is my work - all my life - and nothing else, and because I am the only one who works with fishes and am the only one who does certainly more then anyone of the guys who are fighting me on this forum (they have, as I see it, nothing else more constructive to do, and it is like everywhere in humanity - they are strong in a crowd and behind a computor, but nt in reality), they are jealous, or feel miserable and hate me for that and nothing else. And specially Mark, who does not want to accept the facts and makes up one lie after the other like his teacher Axelrod, and I am sorry for his miserabale life. He invents things (like Axelrod did), just to put me down and make me look as the bad guy, insteadt of resolving his problems once and for all (but I am sure he never will, because then he cannot hate me anymore).

You made a very good attempt by writing "This is my last attempt to make this topic a factual discussion on cichlids. I can nothing say to the 'parallel discussion' carried on here, and which has so much poison in it. It's not my problem and it's especially not at all my busines, but, and this is for all who are involved, I think issues like this should be discussed in private, per lawyer or the devil may know whatever. But they do certainly not belong here and may even do harm to our forum!"

You are 100% correct and I will not ever come back to this forum because of these few hateful (counterproductive) writers. I have not seen it anywhere else and feel sorry for this great forum go to down as much as it does without being corrected by the administration. These guy who seem to have in reality something against me should take a lawyer and sue me (like Axelrod did). But I am sure they will not, as they have nothing except of jealousness because they do not have the cappacity to do what I do (or do not want to, because it is easier to write bad about those they a re jealous off from their computor, instead of going out and teach people, dig into the deepest jungles and help this planet and its people to learn about nature, which we still do not understand a fraction of it).

One day, if this forum is clean again, does constructive discussions (like in part you did, and I would happily answer those question, but it is a waste of time with the others only spitting hate in between, telling nothing concrete or constructive to be able to contribue, and I am sure they will also not listen to you), I may come back.

You do not need me, and I do not need this at all. I reather look at my lovely daughter (thank you you for the nice wishes - she laughs and is happy at me all the time - contrary to those hateful guys here), to follow up my grandfathers, mothers and my work - that with fishes and plants - to help for the better understanding of this planets freshwater aquatic biodiversity (which very few are doing, specially not on this forum). This is productive and good, for all.

All the best!
Heiko Bleher

[Lisachromis]

After reading all this mess, I have a couple of things to say. This forum is for the discussion of cichlids. This forum is not for the airing of dirty laundry. Logical, polite discussion is fine. Personal attacks are not. If certain parties feel that they have been hurt by other parties on the forum, they should take it up personally with them. No one comes here to read 'crap' about people. I have mentioned this privately before. If this behaviour cannot be controlled, I WILL CONTROL it. Not everyone will be happy with it. I'm really starting to not care about that. I don't want to be the bad guy here, but I will if I need to. The only reason everyone is still on this forum is that I've been trying to be nice to everyone and letting them have their say. I'm starting to see that may have been a mistake. There have been complaints from other people about the behaviour they've seen and once that happens, it's time to deal with it. So, if everyone can talk only cichlids again, I'll leave this topic alone. If not, it's getting locked.

[Ken Davis]

But Lisa, this is all so intertaining! Ken

[Lisachromis]

It is entertaining as long as you're not the party involved, or the forum administration.

Hopefully cooler heads will prevail.....

[Mark Smith]

Hi Lisa

Does this also apply to the topic "Suggestion to Update the Symphysoson species" in the Discus section of Cichlidae.com?

[Lisachromis]

That's been dealt with.

[BobB]

From what I understand this is Heiko's work and plenty of it, so it is his choice to put his work on a website or not. This must be a very time consuming endeavor. So I think it is his choice not ours.