Octopuses

[[email protected]]

There was a marvellous TV programme on BBC2 (U.K.) last night, devoted
to octopuses. Part of the program was showing the Giant Pacific
octopus in (I think) the Monterey Aquarium. One of them had grown to
fullsize, so they transferred it to a larger, massive aquarium. There
were sharks of various sizes in the aquarium, so the staff were
concerned for the octopus, in case it was eaten.
Everything was uneventful for several months, then the staff began to
find a dead shark occasionally. These about 40" (1 metre) at least, so
they decided to film the aquarium to try to solve the problem.
They were astonished to find out the cause of the deaths. Octopuses
have brilliant eyesight, as well as great intelligence, as we all
know. It was on the base of the aquarium, level with the surrounding
rocks. It raised one of its tentacles vertically, about a foot (30
cms) above its head. Obviously, due to its good vision, it had seen
the shark coming, and had assessed the shark's size and weight. As the
shark cruised past, the octopus stuck the tentacle to the side of the
shark, and began to pull it towards the tankbase. Within a
split-second several other tentacles wrapped around the shark's head
and body, as it was held in between the rocks. I cannot say how long
the shark took to die, because of film-editing, but the staff could
not believe what they had witnessed. Amazing !!

Regards, Fishnut.

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:10:30 GMT, wrote:

>There was a marvellous TV programme on BBC2 (U.K.) last night, devoted
>to octopuses.

Oops ! It was Channel 5.

Part of the program was showing the Giant Pacific
>octopus in (I think) the Monterey Aquarium. One of them had grown to
>fullsize, so they transferred it to a larger, massive aquarium. There
>were sharks of various sizes in the aquarium, so the staff were
>concerned for the octopus, in case it was eaten.
> Everything was uneventful for several months, then the staff began to
>find a dead shark occasionally. These about 40" (1 metre) at least, so
>they decided to film the aquarium to try to solve the problem.
>They were astonished to find out the cause of the deaths. Octopuses
>have brilliant eyesight, as well as great intelligence, as we all
>know. It was on the base of the aquarium, level with the surrounding
>rocks. It raised one of its tentacles vertically, about a foot (30
>cms) above its head. Obviously, due to its good vision, it had seen
>the shark coming, and had assessed the shark's size and weight. As the
>shark cruised past, the octopus stuck the tentacle to the side of the
>shark, and began to pull it towards the tankbase. Within a
>split-second several other tentacles wrapped around the shark's head
>and body, as it was held in between the rocks. I cannot say how long
>the shark took to die, because of film-editing, but the staff could
>not believe what they had witnessed. Amazing !!
>
>Regards, Fishnut.

[miskairal]

Crikey, think I'll be looking out for octopus instead of sharks next
time I go snorkelling.

I just read this out to hubby and he heard a woman on the radio here in
Oz the other day saying that octopus study us as much as we study them.
She also claimed they'd hop out of their tank and get into whichever
other tank they wanted to. He doesn't know where this was.

wrote:
> There was a marvellous TV programme on BBC2 (U.K.) last night, devoted
> to octopuses. Part of the program was showing the Giant Pacific
> octopus in (I think) the Monterey Aquarium. One of them had grown to
> fullsize, so they transferred it to a larger, massive aquarium. There
> were sharks of various sizes in the aquarium, so the staff were
> concerned for the octopus, in case it was eaten.
> Everything was uneventful for several months, then the staff began to
> find a dead shark occasionally. These about 40" (1 metre) at least, so
> they decided to film the aquarium to try to solve the problem.
> They were astonished to find out the cause of the deaths. Octopuses
> have brilliant eyesight, as well as great intelligence, as we all
> know. It was on the base of the aquarium, level with the surrounding
> rocks. It raised one of its tentacles vertically, about a foot (30
> cms) above its head. Obviously, due to its good vision, it had seen
> the shark coming, and had assessed the shark's size and weight. As the
> shark cruised past, the octopus stuck the tentacle to the side of the
> shark, and began to pull it towards the tankbase. Within a
> split-second several other tentacles wrapped around the shark's head
> and body, as it was held in between the rocks. I cannot say how long
> the shark took to die, because of film-editing, but the staff could
> not believe what they had witnessed. Amazing !!
>
> Regards, Fishnut.
>

[Mark Cooper]

miskairal <mehiding@Oz> wrote in news:43862dd1$0$17703$afc38c87
@news.optusnet.com.au:

> Crikey, think I'll be looking out for octopus instead of sharks next
> time I go snorkelling.
>
> I just read this out to hubby and he heard a woman on the radio here in
> Oz the other day saying that octopus study us as much as we study them.
> She also claimed they'd hop out of their tank and get into whichever
> other tank they wanted to. He doesn't know where this was.

Saw a program where fish were mysteriously disappearing from a display
tank at some aquarium, I don't recall which. An octopus was doing some
nocturnal adventuring, squeezing through a 1/2" gap at the top of the
tanks and enjoying a midnight snack. It would return to its own tank by
morning, leaving the attendants wondering where the fish were going.
Again, they had to set up a camera to film the night's activities to
solve the mystery.


Mark

[Tidepool Geek]

Howdy,

Fishnut wrote:

> Part of the program was showing the Giant Pacific
octopus in (I think) the Monterey Aquarium. One of them had grown to
fullsize, so they transferred it to a larger, massive aquarium. There
were sharks of various sizes in the aquarium <

Actually, that happened in the Seattle Aquarium. There are numerous
clips of this around the net that can be found with a Google search on
Octopus, Shark, and either mpg or wmv.

The shark species involved was the Spiny Dogfish (Squalus acanthias)
which has a maximum recorded size of 63 inches and 20 pounds (160cm &
9.1kg). A sexually mature GPO will weigh at least 50% more than that
and could get to be 5 times that size. Although dogfish were fished
commercially for a while (mainly exported to Britain to become fish &
chips) they are commonly thought of as a nuisance species to be killed
and thrown back. As a result, GPO's routinely include dogfish carrion
as part of their diet but I don't think anyone thought they would go
after a live animal (At least not at the Seattle Aquarium ;-) ). FWIW:
GPO's seem to be very selective when it comes to what fish might or
might not be worth catching. We often keep small species of surf perch
in our GPO tank and I don't think that any GPO (we get a new one each
year and return it to the wild at the end of the season) has ever
shown the least interest - presumably the fish are too small to be
worthwhile. OTOH: We tried keeping a few juvenile salmon which were
two or three times the size of the perch in the same tank . We never
saw an actual attack but there was a good deal of evidence that the GPO
had tried. He never caught one of the salmon (too athletic) and I
think he eventually decided that they weren't worth the effort either.
Dogfish, by contrast, tend to swim at a constant level and a constant
fairly low speed - easy meat for a GPO.


Mark wrote:

> Saw a program where fish were mysteriously disappearing from a
display tank at some aquarium, I don't recall which. An octopus was
doing some nocturnal adventuring, <

That behavior actually seems to be fairly common. It has happened at
the Feiro Marine Life Center in Port Angeles, WA (where I volunteer),
the Port Townsend Marine Life Center (about 30 miles east of Port
Angeles), and at the now defunct Poulsbo Marine Life Center (about 20
miles SE of Pt. Townsend) and I believe that I've heard of it
happening in Seattle and Victoria B.C. Sometimes it involves a GPO but
it seems to be more common with the Red Octopus (Octopus rubescens)
which is a small species that is often found in the intertidal zone.
Red apparently has virtually no compunctions about climbing out of the
water for a short wander and once any octo finds access to an easy
meal it remembers and continues to exploit it. As an example, some of
the GPO's around here have learned that if they find a rope lying on
the bottom there's a very good chance that it will lead to dinner in
the form of a crab pot. This is common enough that it's becoming a
real problem for commercial crabbers.

Predatorally yours,

Alex

[[email protected]]

On 24 Nov 2005 18:28:14 -0800, "Tidepool Geek"
> wrote:

>Howdy,
>
>Fishnut wrote:
>
>> Part of the program was showing the Giant Pacific
>octopus in (I think) the Monterey Aquarium. One of them had grown to
>fullsize, so they transferred it to a larger, massive aquarium. There
>were sharks of various sizes in the aquarium <
>
Hello Alex,

The TV programme series is entitled "Deep Blue". "Octopus Odyssey" was
the first in a series of 4 Progs. I will have to wait for the next 3
weeks to see what other goodies are shown, but that whole programme
was riveting. I can't remember whether the credits at the end of the
prog. said something like "Produced with cooperation of BBC, WDR, NTF,
etc." which some wildlife films do, and in which case they are
probably syndicated to be shown worldwide.

>Actually, that happened in the Seattle Aquarium. There are numerous
>clips of this around the net that can be found with a Google search on
>Octopus, Shark, and either mpg or wmv.
>
>The shark species involved was the Spiny Dogfish (Squalus acanthias)
>which has a maximum recorded size of 63 inches and 20 pounds (160cm &
>9.1kg). A sexually mature GPO will weigh at least 50% more than that
>and could get to be 5 times that size. Although dogfish were fished
>commercially for a while (mainly exported to Britain to become fish &
>chips)

Our national dish. Ha ! Ha! If all the fish & chip shops in the U.K.
closed, there would be people starving in the streets. Ha ! Ha!

they are commonly thought of as a nuisance species to be killed
>and thrown back. As a result, GPO's routinely include dogfish carrion
>as part of their diet but I don't think anyone thought they would go
>after a live animal (At least not at the Seattle Aquarium ;-) ). FWIW:
>GPO's seem to be very selective when it comes to what fish might or
>might not be worth catching. We often keep small species of surf perch
>in our GPO tank and I don't think that any GPO (we get a new one each
>year and return it to the wild at the end of the season) has ever
>shown the least interest - presumably the fish are too small to be
>worthwhile. OTOH: We tried keeping a few juvenile salmon which were
>two or three times the size of the perch in the same tank . We never
>saw an actual attack but there was a good deal of evidence that the GPO
>had tried. He never caught one of the salmon (too athletic) and I
>think he eventually decided that they weren't worth the effort either.
>Dogfish, by contrast, tend to swim at a constant level and a constant
>fairly low speed - easy meat for a GPO.
>
>
>Mark wrote:
>
>> Saw a program where fish were mysteriously disappearing from a
>display tank at some aquarium, I don't recall which. An octopus was
>doing some nocturnal adventuring, <

This appeared in the same TV prog.. It was a lab. set-up of I suppose
10 large tanks in a "U" shape, all with a puzzle of some sort for the
octopus to solve, usually involving narrow tubes for it to slide its
body through. It did this because it was inquisitive, not because
there was food for it to eat at the end of the puzzle. Their
brainpower is fantastic. One night they left the cameras running,
switched out most of the lights, and left the lab.. One of the tanks
near to the octopus was full of crabs - favourite food ! The octopus
slid out of its own tank, hit the floor with a loud splat, pulled
itself along the floor, and climbed up the side of the crab-aquarium
until it could reach in, and catch as many as it felt like eating.
Then it slid back and climbed back into its own aquarium.
The powers of observation and reasoning are also fantastic. It is one
of the few beings that can learn simply by observing another octopus.
One watches another in a tank (say) 12 feet away unscrewing a jar-top
to access food. When a jar is then placed in the first octopus's tank,
it has been seen to immediately unscrew the top to gain access to the
food. This seems to show more intelligence than a chimpanzee.
>
>That behavior actually seems to be fairly common. It has happened at
>the Feiro Marine Life Center in Port Angeles, WA (where I volunteer),
>the Port Townsend Marine Life Center (about 30 miles east of Port
>Angeles), and at the now defunct Poulsbo Marine Life Center (about 20
>miles SE of Pt. Townsend) and I believe that I've heard of it
>happening in Seattle and Victoria B.C. Sometimes it involves a GPO but
>it seems to be more common with the Red Octopus (Octopus rubescens)
>which is a small species that is often found in the intertidal zone.
>Red apparently has virtually no compunctions about climbing out of the
>water for a short wander and once any octo finds access to an easy
>meal it remembers and continues to exploit it. As an example, some of
>the GPO's around here have learned that if they find a rope lying on
>the bottom there's a very good chance that it will lead to dinner in
>the form of a crab pot. This is common enough that it's becoming a
>real problem for commercial crabbers.
>
>Predatorally yours,
>
>Alex
Yes, we have lots of lobster-pots around our coasts. I don't know
whether it happens, because the fisherman may simply feel that the pot
caught nothing. The pots are also baited, so if there is no crab or
lobster inside, there will still be some food to eat. Anything inside
the pot is a captive, and so cannot escape the octopus. With brains
like this, they ought to be running the Government.

Regards, Fishnut.

[miskairal]

wrote:
> On 24 Nov 2005 18:28:14 -0800, "Tidepool Geek"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Howdy,
>>
>>Fishnut wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Part of the program was showing the Giant Pacific
>>
>>octopus in (I think) the Monterey Aquarium. One of them had grown to
>>fullsize, so they transferred it to a larger, massive aquarium. There
>>were sharks of various sizes in the aquarium <
>>
> Hello Alex,
>
> The TV programme series is entitled "Deep Blue". "Octopus Odyssey" was
> the first in a series of 4 Progs. I will have to wait for the next 3
> weeks to see what other goodies are shown, but that whole programme
> was riveting. I can't remember whether the credits at the end of the
> prog. said something like "Produced with cooperation of BBC, WDR, NTF,
> etc." which some wildlife films do, and in which case they are
> probably syndicated to be shown worldwide.
>
>
>>Actually, that happened in the Seattle Aquarium. There are numerous
>>clips of this around the net that can be found with a Google search on
>>Octopus, Shark, and either mpg or wmv.
>>
>>The shark species involved was the Spiny Dogfish (Squalus acanthias)
>>which has a maximum recorded size of 63 inches and 20 pounds (160cm &
>>9.1kg). A sexually mature GPO will weigh at least 50% more than that
>>and could get to be 5 times that size. Although dogfish were fished
>>commercially for a while (mainly exported to Britain to become fish &
>>chips)
>
>
> Our national dish. Ha ! Ha! If all the fish & chip shops in the U.K.
> closed, there would be people starving in the streets. Ha ! Ha!
>
> they are commonly thought of as a nuisance species to be killed
>
>>and thrown back. As a result, GPO's routinely include dogfish carrion
>>as part of their diet but I don't think anyone thought they would go
>>after a live animal (At least not at the Seattle Aquarium ;-) ). FWIW:
>>GPO's seem to be very selective when it comes to what fish might or
>>might not be worth catching. We often keep small species of surf perch
>>in our GPO tank and I don't think that any GPO (we get a new one each
>>year and return it to the wild at the end of the season) has ever
>>shown the least interest - presumably the fish are too small to be
>>worthwhile. OTOH: We tried keeping a few juvenile salmon which were
>>two or three times the size of the perch in the same tank . We never
>>saw an actual attack but there was a good deal of evidence that the GPO
>>had tried. He never caught one of the salmon (too athletic) and I
>>think he eventually decided that they weren't worth the effort either.
>>Dogfish, by contrast, tend to swim at a constant level and a constant
>>fairly low speed - easy meat for a GPO.
>>
>>
>>Mark wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Saw a program where fish were mysteriously disappearing from a
>>
>>display tank at some aquarium, I don't recall which. An octopus was
>>doing some nocturnal adventuring, <
>
>
> This appeared in the same TV prog.. It was a lab. set-up of I suppose
> 10 large tanks in a "U" shape, all with a puzzle of some sort for the
> octopus to solve, usually involving narrow tubes for it to slide its
> body through. It did this because it was inquisitive, not because
> there was food for it to eat at the end of the puzzle. Their
> brainpower is fantastic. One night they left the cameras running,
> switched out most of the lights, and left the lab.. One of the tanks
> near to the octopus was full of crabs - favourite food ! The octopus
> slid out of its own tank, hit the floor with a loud splat, pulled
> itself along the floor, and climbed up the side of the crab-aquarium
> until it could reach in, and catch as many as it felt like eating.
> Then it slid back and climbed back into its own aquarium.
> The powers of observation and reasoning are also fantastic. It is one
> of the few beings that can learn simply by observing another octopus.
> One watches another in a tank (say) 12 feet away unscrewing a jar-top
> to access food. When a jar is then placed in the first octopus's tank,
> it has been seen to immediately unscrew the top to gain access to the
> food. This seems to show more intelligence than a chimpanzee.
>
>>That behavior actually seems to be fairly common. It has happened at
>>the Feiro Marine Life Center in Port Angeles, WA (where I volunteer),
>>the Port Townsend Marine Life Center (about 30 miles east of Port
>>Angeles), and at the now defunct Poulsbo Marine Life Center (about 20
>>miles SE of Pt. Townsend) and I believe that I've heard of it
>>happening in Seattle and Victoria B.C. Sometimes it involves a GPO but
>>it seems to be more common with the Red Octopus (Octopus rubescens)
>>which is a small species that is often found in the intertidal zone.
>>Red apparently has virtually no compunctions about climbing out of the
>>water for a short wander and once any octo finds access to an easy
>>meal it remembers and continues to exploit it. As an example, some of
>>the GPO's around here have learned that if they find a rope lying on
>>the bottom there's a very good chance that it will lead to dinner in
>>the form of a crab pot. This is common enough that it's becoming a
>>real problem for commercial crabbers.
>>
>>Predatorally yours,
>>
>>Alex
>
> Yes, we have lots of lobster-pots around our coasts. I don't know
> whether it happens, because the fisherman may simply feel that the pot
> caught nothing. The pots are also baited, so if there is no crab or
> lobster inside, there will still be some food to eat. Anything inside
> the pot is a captive, and so cannot escape the octopus. With brains
> like this, they ought to be running the Government.
>
> Regards, Fishnut.

This is such an interesting thread!
Thanks all.
Actually I think right now the govt. is the octopus and the bait is our
money - they seem to get to it easily enough.

[[email protected]]

On 24 Nov 2005 18:28:14 -0800, "Tidepool Geek"
> wrote:

>Howdy,
>
>Fishnut wrote:
>
>> Part of the program was showing the Giant Pacific
>octopus in (I think) the Monterey Aquarium. One of them had grown to
>fullsize, so they transferred it to a larger, massive aquarium. There
>were sharks of various sizes in the aquarium <
>
>Actually, that happened in the Seattle Aquarium. There are numerous
>clips of this around the net that can be found with a Google search on
>Octopus, Shark, and either mpg or wmv.
>
>The shark species involved was the Spiny Dogfish (Squalus acanthias)
>which has a maximum recorded size of 63 inches and 20 pounds (160cm &
>9.1kg). A sexually mature GPO will weigh at least 50% more than that
>and could get to be 5 times that size. Although dogfish were fished
>commercially for a while (mainly exported to Britain to become fish &
>chips)
Alex,

I would like to express my gratitude to the American people for their
kind consideration in feeding the poor and needy of the U.K..

To clear-up one of your home-spun myths, the fish used in fish and
chips was, until very recently, invariably cod. Due to overfishing,
EEC fisheries policy and other factors, cod became scarce, together
with a massive price increase. Environmentalists and Government
scientists requested the public to eat hake or haddock instead, which
to my palette have always tasted better, anyway. Due to the price
increase, new sales taxes and probably changing tastes, many of the
"chippies" closed down (probably the first to close would be those
offering shark and chips). They were taken over by many Indian
Curry-houses (Gandhi's Revenge - to which a million smouldering
rear-ends can testify).

Regards, Fishnut.

[Tidepool Geek]

FishNut wrote:
To clear-up one of your home-spun myths, the fish used in fish and
chips was, until very recently, invariably cod.

Hi FN,

You imply that our local (NE Pacific) dogfish are not used in British
fish & chips and you are correct. It appears that most of our exports
go to Asia or continental Europe; sorry for the error. OTOH: I came
across the following information in a rather long report on the
Atlantic fishery for the Spiny Dogfish. Note the final sentence.
>>>
SOURCE: Communications Directorate
Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Ottawa, Ontario

Unlike many other species, dogfish are not filleted. The belly flaps
are cut out, the fins removed and the body is skinned leaving a white
carcass or "back".

The belly flaps are exported to Germany where they are smoked and sold
as a delicacy in "beer gardens". The fins are frozen and exported to
the Orient where they are used in Japanese-Chinese cuisine. The backs
are wrapped and frozen either individually or in blocks for export to
England where they are a mainstay of the "fish and chips" trade.
<<<
I also found similar information in a taxonomy draft from Virginia
Tech. University in the US.

Ironically, what happened to the cod very nearly happened to the
dogfish in our area. Like the cod, dogfish are pretty easy to catch
when they're reasonably abundant. IOW: Neither species could be called
'canny'. The dogfish is also pretty slow at reproducing - The female
gives birth to 7-15 live young after a 24 month gestation. That sort
of reproductive rate will make managing a sustainable fishery pretty
tricky.

BTW: The Pacific and Atlantic dogfish are the same species (Squalus
acanthias) and, with proper processing can produce wholesome flesh
with good flavor and texture. Of course, without proper processing the
stuff is horrible! FWIW: Dogfish, and maybe all sharks, don't pee;
they excrete urea by exuding it through their skin and that makes it
important to get the skin off quickly. For a long time the major
limiting factor to the fishery around here had to do with steaming
time to the nearest of the very few processing plants.

Given that I have now used all of the most common internet
abbreviations and that this is quite a way off topic I will close now.

Doggedly yours,

Alex

[[email protected]]

On 27 Nov 2005 18:45:01 -0800, "Tidepool Geek"
> wrote:

>FishNut wrote:
>To clear-up one of your home-spun myths, the fish used in fish and
>chips was, until very recently, invariably cod.
>
>Hi FN,
>
>You imply that our local (NE Pacific) dogfish are not used in British
>fish & chips and you are correct. It appears that most of our exports
>go to Asia or continental Europe; sorry for the error. OTOH: I came
>across the following information in a rather long report on the
>Atlantic fishery for the Spiny Dogfish. Note the final sentence.
>>>>
>SOURCE: Communications Directorate
>Department of Fisheries and Oceans
>Ottawa, Ontario
>
>Unlike many other species, dogfish are not filleted. The belly flaps
>are cut out, the fins removed and the body is skinned leaving a white
>carcass or "back".
>
>The belly flaps are exported to Germany where they are smoked and sold
>as a delicacy in "beer gardens". The fins are frozen and exported to
>the Orient where they are used in Japanese-Chinese cuisine. The backs
>are wrapped and frozen either individually or in blocks for export to
>England where they are a mainstay of the "fish and chips" trade.
><<<
>I also found similar information in a taxonomy draft from Virginia
>Tech. University in the US.
>
>Ironically, what happened to the cod very nearly happened to the
>dogfish in our area. Like the cod, dogfish are pretty easy to catch
>when they're reasonably abundant. IOW: Neither species could be called
>'canny'. The dogfish is also pretty slow at reproducing - The female
>gives birth to 7-15 live young after a 24 month gestation. That sort
>of reproductive rate will make managing a sustainable fishery pretty
>tricky.
>
>BTW: The Pacific and Atlantic dogfish are the same species (Squalus
>acanthias) and, with proper processing can produce wholesome flesh
>with good flavor and texture. Of course, without proper processing the
>stuff is horrible! FWIW: Dogfish, and maybe all sharks, don't pee;
>they excrete urea by exuding it through their skin and that makes it
>important to get the skin off quickly. For a long time the major
>limiting factor to the fishery around here had to do with steaming
>time to the nearest of the very few processing plants.
>
>Given that I have now used all of the most common internet
>abbreviations and that this is quite a way off topic I will close now.
>
>Doggedly yours,
>
>Alex

Hello Alex,

Despite the above information being reported, I am sure that you will
find that it is incorrect. Most of the "chippies" belonged to an
Association - something like "Fish Friers Assoc." or something like
that. My aunty used to run a chippy, in the 1950's, and to be
top-quality for taste, you not only had to have good fish, but the
batter and frying-fat, had to be the best.
If you started using lower-quality fish etc., the customers would have
gone somewherelse, probably after telling you where to stuff your
fish-and-chips.

What is OTOH ?

Your reference to conservation is appropriate, because apart from
seasonal variations, which are always going to happen, there will
probably be a balance between food supplies, predation, population
densities etc.. When mankind begins to remove certain species, usually
for food, presumably the whole balance of the remaining species
becomes skewed, although this is not assessed, as man is only
concerned with the lack of available food, and begins to blame other
species of fish, otters, grizzly-bears etc. for the shortage.

Regards, Fishnut.

[David Zopf]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Despite the above information being reported, I am sure that you will
> find that it is incorrect. Most of the "chippies" belonged to an
> Association - something like "Fish Friers Assoc." or something like
> that. My aunty used to run a chippy, in the 1950's, and to be
> top-quality for taste, you not only had to have good fish, but the
> batter and frying-fat, had to be the best.
> If you started using lower-quality fish etc., the customers would have
> gone somewherelse, probably after telling you where to stuff your
> fish-and-chips.
>
> What is OTOH ?
An abbreviation for "On The Other Hand"

More abbreviations follow the sig, do not read if you are a member of the
growing ranks of the over-acronymated. It will give you a headache ;-)

Regards,
DaveZ
Atom Weaver

AFAIK - as far as I know
AFAIC - as far as I'm concerned
AFK - away from keyboard
ASAP - as soon as possible
ASL - age, sex, location
BBL - be back later
BMC - bitch, moan & complain
BRB - be right back
BTW - by the way
CU - see you
CYA - see you
DIY - do it yourself
EWG - evil wicked grin
F2F - face to face (meeting)
FAQ - frequently asked questions
FWIW - for what it's worth
FYI - for your information
HTH - hope that (this) helps
IIRC - if I recall correctly
IRC - internet relay chat
IMHO - in my humble opinion
IMNSHO - in my not so humble opinion
IMO - in my opinion
IMVHO - in my very humble opinion
IOW - in other words
IRL - in real life
ISP - internet service provider
J/K - just kidding
KISS - keep it simple stupid
L8TR - later
LOL - laughing out loud
LMAO - laughing my *** off
OIC - oh I see
OMG - oh my god
OT - off topic
OTF - on the floor
OTOH - on the other hand
PLS - please
RL - real life (off the net)
ROTFL - rolling on the floor laughing
ROTFLMAO - ROTFL + LMAO
RTFM - read the fine (f'ing) manual
SO - significant other
THX - thanks
TOS - terms of service
TTFN - ta ta (goodbye) for now
URL - uniform resource locator
W/B - welcome back
W/O - without
WIP - work in progress
WTF - what the ****
WTG - way to go
WU? - what's up?
WWW - world wide web
WYSIWYG - what you see is what you get
YMMV - your mileage may vary
ZZZ - sleeping (tired or bored)