Perhaps not a rant but of similar vain in argument, Litchfield’s piece remains an opinion without data to support it. The piece was published online and thus comment is open on Litchfield’s contentions. This article is thus a valid commentary and part of the scientific process of vetting.

As noted above, we actually have solid data demonstrating that the “unmonstering” of fish species highly coincides with greater landings and consumption of these species.

And to the contrary, I have spent greater than a decade thinking precisely about these kinds of issues and collecting data from my social media campaigns on precisely what does and does not work.

As a far as labelling something alien, this likely leads to more funding in programs on exploration and uncovering mysteries of oceans.

Snark gets attention, and attention is better than no attention, sure. But why not make a point of using your influence — and often you do — routinely towards respect and amazement? Sure, amazement at the ridiculousness of the contraption that is life. But the crazy thing works. Laugh at that.

Negative attitudes probably matter. Shark conservation has had some trouble with attitudes. You could run a psych study presenting subjects with a bland article, an interesting positive one, or a catchy negative one.

I wouldn’t criticize, because I bet even your negative articles are net benefits for the species involved, but since you bring up the question, there it is. I have to agree with the comments that H. sapiens in particular in no position to dis M. mola as a species. They’ll outlast us. And let’s not talk about who’s getting into Heaven.

I greatly appreciate most of DSN’s posts and articles. I learn from them and am often entertained by them. I appreciate the interest in marine life that they try to instill in the audience. Most importantly, though, I believe is to engender appreciation and respect for our fellow species and for nature. This can be done in a colorful, humorous way but should not be done at the subject’s expense. Just as one (hopefully) wouldn’t describe another culture in an insulting, derogatory way, we shouldn’t describe other species in that way. At the very least there should be some redeeming value in a commentary. There was none whatsoever in the sunfish screed.

It reminds me of the appalling video about the sunfish in Boston Harbor for which those two very vulgar and violent ignoramuses received so much fame and praise. They tortured that amazing and harmless fish, and people cheered them: https://www.facebook.com/mikeybrgn/videos/10200956162583724/ I was truly disgusted to find it posted here with no criticism from DSN but rather as something praiseworthy.

Bringing attention to other life forms is not enough. We should appreciate and respect them, and above all we should have compassion for our fellow sentient beings, whatever species they happen to be. To me, engendering this quality in others is DSN at its best. Encouraging disrespect for them is DSN at its worst.

I disagree. Pandas survived just fine until humans arrived; we are their only problem. And as of dolphins, I’m sure that, if proper research was undertaken, we’d find out that the prevalence of rape between dolphins is pretty similar to that within heavily patriarchal human societies. They aren’t more the rapists of the sea than humans are the rapists of the land.

I also believe that we’re witnessing fairly recent phenomena as the dolphin’s natural aggression is being heavily exacerbated by the noise pollution generated by human ships.

As for “such readers have no value”, that is the most pathetic thing I’ve read in a while. (a) Actually, ‘those’ readers are the most important, you idiot. By which I mean people who don’t necessarily have an intrinsic interest in ecology or biodiversity. (b) Lots of scientists, including myself, really enjoy this. I mean, obviously: this is written by scientists! I really hope the person who wrote this is still in undergrad or fresh out of school, because that’s a ridiculous, embarrassing, and gross thing to think. (c) I also enjoy more “dry” reading, and that in no way precludes being exceptionally amused by this kind of thing. My first reaction was “hey! Leave mola mola alone!” followed by dying of laughter, FYI. And sharing it on FB.

The world around us is weird and wonderful and beautiful, and if you refuse to acknowledge that, you’re probably taking yourself too seriously.

I second this sentiment

Anyway, I am quite sure you have the page views to slap in the face of the naysayers. There is room for all these types of communication, the more morphs the wider the reach. I’m not sure why people bother telling you when they haven’t read all the way through – they were clearly not the target audience in the first place.

I echo the calls to “Keep it up!” Dr M and Deep Sea News – you have plenty of supporters clamoring for your deep sea wit and wisdom.