Reef Fish wrote:

> Here is the definitive analysis to end it all.

Hardly definitive, hardly the end.

> I am tired of Lee's silly GAME and mouth-dance . . .

If you're tired of it and have much more important things to do, then why
not quite playing the game and the dancing.

> You cited NOTHING.  You don't remember anything.  You're too lazy and/or
> too ignorant to retrieve/find anything to cite!
>
> >I did not once, ever refer to what Rondales said
> >about Molasses.  I posted I read it somewhere.
>                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It is not I who is too lazy, stupid or ignorant.  You first referred to
Rondales and I responded that I had read it, but did not have any idea
where.  I only admitted that it might have been in Rondale's after you
pointed out the fact that Rondale's had posted something to that effect
previously.  You, on the other hand, first called Rondale's information
worthless and then proceeded to quote in post after post to support your
position.  It's not I who is dancing.

> Mon, 31 Jul 2000 18:41:41 -0400, you complained I said you had "read",
> when you only said you "saw data".  NOW you said you "read it
> somewhere".  Nicely done, Lee: SELF-CONTRADICTION.   This was
> your EARLIER complaint (from a different post):

Funny, that's not how I remember it.  I recall complaining that you said I
stated I had read it in Rondale's and that is the one and only error I
referred to.  Odd that you have no text to quote on this one, perhaps
because what you continue to assert has no basis in fact.

You also seem to have conveniently forgotten that I said that whether or not
Molassas was or was not the number one most visited (notice I did not equate
this with popular) site, there was no denying that thousands visit S.
Florida to dive every year.  I've seen nothing from you to refute this,
possibly because there's nothing you can find to refute the truth.

> Where did you see the data, I asked.  Lee replied:

Show this quote from one of your messages.

> Lee>  I haven't the slightest idea where I saw it, but I've seen it more
> Lee>  than once.  It might have been Rondale

Right.  It might have been Rondale, I don't know.  I have not once defined
Rondales as the difinitive source or even the source of my information.  I
read lots of dive magazines and, as it happens, don't place a lot of
credibility in any of them.  That does not, however, make my statement that
I read something somewhere any less accurate.  I did read it, and that's all
I said.  No matter how many times you claim otherwise, your statements do
not make anything more or less truthful.

> So, Lee had NO DATA.  NO recollection of WHERE.  NO reference,
> except "might have been Rondale <sic>".

Never claimed to have the data, never claimed to know where I had seen it.
Only claimed I did.  Since I did, my claim is accurate and truthful.  Too
bad you can't say the same.

> That sent me to research just exactly WHERE Rodale's had ranked
> Molasses Reef "1st" in anything.  Yup.  It appeared THERE okay:
> This was what I posted in reply to Lee:

OK, so Rondale's did say that.  That still does not mean that's where I read
it.  I specifically mentioned that I had seen it more than once.  I still do
not know that I saw it in Rondale's and I have not once referred to
Rondale's as the difinitive source for anything.  Only you have done that.
Regardless, you continue to insist that I did.

> I posted this to UNIQUELY identify the ONLY mag and ONLY time Lee
> could have "read" it:

So, now the truth, or at least your version of it comes out.  You found that
Rondale's had written that and you decided that because they had, that this
must have been where I saw it, that it had not been published anywhere else,
ever, and that because you knew that it had only been published in one
place, that meant that had stated that it was true because I saw it in
Rondale's.  You've made some remarkably foolish assumptions and drawn a
completely inaccurate conclusion which you, by virtue of your ego, now claim
to be conclusively proven.  What did you say your specialty was?  What grade
would you have assigned to someone who followed a similar path to a
similarly erroneous conclusion?

> > It's RODALE's, not Rondales.  MOLASSES Reef, not Molassas.

Yep.  Two points for you.  You corrected my spelling.  I guess everyone has
to be right about something sometime and so far, this is the best you've
been able to do.

> > Lee, since you can't remember ANY reference, and you're always too LAZY
> > to look for it . . .

No, just not interested.  My point was never the source, only the fact that
some people think diving in South Florida is worth traveling to do.  That
was the central point of the discussion and that is my statement.  You can
mouth dance around the sides of the issue until the cows come home, but the
fact is still the fact.

You, on the other hand, declined to address the central issue, preferring
your dance around everything else.  The only support you have provided on
anything in this discussion is that Rondale's said the same thing I did.
Thanks for supporting my position.  Now try supporting your own, or is it
beneith you to be held to standards you demand for others.

> > You vaguely recalled "RONDALES".  That's enough of a clue for me to
> > have tracked down THE article -- which was the ONLY TIME, ONLY PLACE,
> > any magazine in the entire world rated "Molasses Reef" as ranking
> > "1st" in anything!  It was in an old issue of Rodale's!   Go find it
> > yourself.  ;-)

You are as full of stuff as the Christmas turkey.  You have absolutely no
idea whatsoever what has been written in all the magazines, over all time.
You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that I read it in Rondale's, only
that you did.  You don't even have evidence that I read it in a magazine.
Magazines are not the only written material in existance.  You have proved
nothing except that your ego is so large that you believe if you've only
seem something in one place, then it's only appeared in one place and so
large that you seem to be psychologically incapable of admitting you've made
a mistake.  I'll do it for you.  You're wrong.

> Stop mouth-dancing about me putting words in your mouth!

Then quit doing so.

> To rebut, you can do ANY of the following:
> (a)  Give the reference WHERE you read it.

I've already said that I didn't know where I read it and admitted that it
could have been Rondale's.  I have not stated that it was, but have stated
that I have seen it more than once.

> (b)  Show WHERE else you COULD have read it other than Rodale's.

Rebuttal complete.  I could have read it in an e-mail posted in a newsgroup,
list or to me personally.  I also could have read it in publications
occasionally put out by the national park service or any of the dive shops
that line the northern Keys.  I could have read it on someone's website.
How many could have's do you need?

Now you explain to everyone how you know that no magazine has ever stated
the Molasses is the most frequently visited dive site in the world.

> (c)  SHOW the DATA.

> Of course Lee had already acknowledged FAILURE to remember any of those.

Right.  I admitted I didn't have the source data.  Since you have not
admitted that you don't either, we're all waiting for you to share you data,
something you've always avoided doing and, I suspect, will avoid this time
too.

> In that post, I quoted a paragraph by Lee (which Viv quoted), before
> making my comment.   Lee MISSED my quote of him, MIS-attributed
> my quote predicting HIS behavior as (this is really getting silly)
> attributing my own words to HIM!  Lee had the unadulterated
> Chutzpah to post, Put up or shut up . . . if you can.

Well, I guess we now know whether you can or not.  You neither put up nor
shut up.  I'm going to go and look for your post, just to rub your nose in
it.  I won't be surprised to find it missing, but I'll look anyway.  I
posted your mis quote in my message.  You chose to leave it out of yours.
Hell of a way to win a point.

> Game of OVER, Lee.   You'll be mouth-dancing SOLO on this.

Want to bet?

Lee