Reef Fish wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 18:43:37 +1300, J.M. Vitoux
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> J.M., this may be your intended bait, but I choose to answer it because
> this MAY be my only post in the next 10 days because of circumstances
> of my moving and my foreign trip.
>
> >Reef Fish wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I've been VERY busy, and so I haven't had a chance to read Scuba-L until
> >> now, about 24 hours after Lee's post.
> >
> >I wasn't aware that Lee was still participating in scuba-l ...
>
> As I said, "I've been VERY busy ...", and that was a Freudian slip because
> this IS the REAL Scuba-L, as far as *I* am concerned.

I knew that :-)

>
> >> HOWEVER, since I always read my personal email FIRST, I have been advised
> >> about Lee's post already, by ONE of my MANY trusted Scuba-SE readers:
> >
> >There we go with those mystery offline messages. I've seen you
> >time and again challenge others when they refer to offline
> >support against you. Now you are using those same offline
> >messages that you usually dismiss, going usually up to
> >questioning even their existence.
>
> Monsieur Vitoux, the main difference is that I was citing the fact
> that I was PRE-warned.  I was CITING the lines verbatim, because they
> seem most appropriate, and was said by one respectable and respected
> citizen of this  group.  Even though I could have, and have, said the
> SAME many times before, it was better and more convenient because
> someone else said it FIRST, this time, even before I read it.

The main difference is that whenever someone speaks about what
they receive offline, you challenge them, speak about lack of
audit and keep questioning their integrity. I'm just wondering
why it is ok for you to refer to offline mails and not for the
others.

>
> >Do you care to show us proof of
> >this message of one of your "trusted readers"
>
> No proof is needed beyond my personal INTEGRITY, J.M.  Perhaps that's
> a concept too foreign for you to understand, having been around too
> many people without such.

Nice attack Bob, do you care to substantiate it (don't bother, I
know you can't).
I just note that in similar circumstances, you have no qualms
questioning other's integrity. I suspect, considering the tone of
your answer, that you don't like your own medicine's taste.

>
> That's too cheap a trick to make me reveal, or even hint, who that
> person is.  You'll just have to LOSE YOUR SLEEP over it.  ;-)

Ok, I'll take the bait and guess that John sent you the mail. Do
I win something?

>
> >(BTW, how do you
> >own them, how much does it cost you to maintain those readers)
>
> Jean-Marc, there are things in this world (and credibility in scuba
> discussion forums) that money CANNOT buy.

You are the living proof for your own assertion. For your
enlightenment, you can't buy respectability either...

>
> You're simultaneously insulting MANY readers of Scuba-SE, let alone
> the question of insulting me.  When several "respected citizens",
> including but not limited to Strike, spoke out on my behalf in Scuba-L,

I think you are mistaken in your interpretation (note that I
don't claim to know Strike's intent). My take on it is that the
majority of interventions went not to speak on your behalf (as if
you were the center of everything, HA) but against the line taken
by Nick and his clique.
Don't misunderstand the situation. Anyone who has followed the
events on scuba-l knows that you played a very important part in
them. In essence, you and your attitude have a big share in
responsibility in what happened.

On the subject of insulting scuba-se readers, methinks you are
focusing on the straw. Don't you think downgrading some scuba-se
participants as your trusted readers is rather insulting?


> Nick and others insinuated, as you do now, that *I* put them up to it.
> It turned out I hadn't corresponded privately with ANY of them for
> weeks (if not months) because I was too BUSY travelling (and so were
> they with their work and travel) to engage in private correspondence
> beyond public ones.
>
> or
> >do we have to take your word for it.
> >
> >Jean-Marc
>
> If the "we" meant you, I couldn't care less.
>
> BTW, J.M., have you posted ANYTHING about SCUBA in Scuba-SE (other
> than these silly snipes) since Scuba-SE took on its new character
> and membership in May?

I'll let you do your own research on that.

BTW, Robert, have you realized how peaceful scuba-se is when you
are on holiday?

Jean-Marc