On Friday, March 09, 2001 12:03 AM, Lee Bell wrote:

(snip)

> > As far as
> > being the man that you thought I was, I long ago learned the folly of
> rising
> > to bait of that sort.  :-)

> No bait, just disappointment.  You're not obligated to be what I hope you
> are, think you are or wish you were.  The real question is whether you are
> the man you think you are and that's a question only you can ask or
answer.

Like Popeye says, "I yam what I yam, and that's all that I yam."  :-)

> > And you have admitted to purposely baiting Bob . . .

> Correct.  I baited him and admitted it.  I baited him more than once.  My
> statement regarding the EPIRB used by the Aggressor without including how
I
> knew was bait too.

And that's where this whole issue started.  You'd failed to read the post
that launched this whole sorry episode and were therefore arguing a position
for its own sake, rather than following what other people were saying and
whose responses WERE based on the original release.

>Bob immediately swallowed it hook, line and sinker by
> stating that I didn't know which unit they were using.  He had no basis
for
> his statement and, as I have previously revealed, I did, in fact, know at
> the time.

Oh, really??????

> On Tuesday, March 06, 2001 4:42 PM, Lee Bell wrote:
> (snip)
> > > > 1. Someone said I didn't know which unit the Aggressor had.  That
> person
> > > > called me a liar for saying I did.

> > > Lee!  Until now, did you know for certain what unit the Agressor fleet
> > had?
> > > Or, indeed, whether it was something that merely shared the same
acronym
> > as
> > > Emergency Position Indicator Radio Beacon?

> > I knew the first time I said I knew.  I checked with the manufacturer
very
> > early in the thread, a fact I mentioned before Bob claimed I did not
know.
> > That's when I requested the documentation I got this weekend.  As I
stated
> > before, I talked with both the design engineer and the Director of
Sales.

 So you didn't know for certain until last week-end.

> > As for the acronym, there was never any question.

 Oh, but there was.  Acronyms can be very misleading things.

> >I was certain what the
> > device was from the first post.

 Later on you claim not to have read the first post, (the press release in
 question), until I pointed you towards it and suggested that you read it.

> >It appears that Christian was as well.  It
> > was obvious that Bob didn't know what he was talking about and that is
> > exactly what I said from the first.

 But how could you know that Bob didn't know what he was talking about if
 you only received confirmation of exactly what the device was last
> weekend?

In fact, wasn't it you who disputed the fact that the unit in question could
be taken
 to depths below 10-metres:
 >>The ones I found are not waterproof below about 10 meters and the words
 >>pressure proof are not mentioned at all.<<    Given that response how do
 you now claim that the Aggressor unit with a depth capability of 200 ft was
 what you thought it was?

(snip)
> > My concern in this matter is that in purposely setting out to
> > bait Bob, you're creating the same environment that preceded the break
up
> of
> > Scuba-L - a forum filled with people and topics that appealed to me.

> Criticism accepted.  I first became involved in response to comments Bob
> made in public.  Since then, I have baited him, something that is
remarkably
> easy to do.  He's very predictable, another characteristic he tends to
> assign to others.  What has been going on is, in fact, very much like what
> went on in Scuba-L and, not surprisingly, one of the parties is the same.

Only one?

> Bob has suggested that I am acting like Ron Lee, Jan and others who are
not
> held in particularly high esteem here.

That's Bob's - and now your - interpretation of what folk think.  Neither
Jan, (although a lurker here), nor Ron Lee post here.  (I only know them for
their on-line personas and while I've decided that they and I have nothing
in common, I wouldn't presume to answer for everybody!)

>What he has avoided saying is that
> he's acting as Bob, as he did in Scuba-L and as he has here.

Did you expect him to stop being himself and act in any way other than the
way that he always has?  (Particularly if acting in any other way is because
one or two control freaks say that he should!)

>The big
> differences are:
> 1. I'm not afraid of Bob like those who tried to conspire in private
appear
> to have been.

Nobody's suggested that you are.  You're a big boy now.  What, however, I
have been suggesting to you is that if you're intent on doing battle for its
own sake then at least make sure that your arguments are sound.

> 2. There's nobody here inclined to censor the participants.

You appear to be trying.

>Call it
> collateral damage for the right to speak freely.

Let's not be coy, let's call it idiocy!

(snip)

> > As for someone stooping to a new low by
> > pretending to be me?  Well!  They'd need an awful lot of mining
equipment
> to
> > get lower than me!  :-)

> Stop into Rec.Scuba again to see how wrong you are.

I never stepped out!

> When Deja.Com went
> down, about half the list, all fakes, disappeared.  I would not expect to
> find that here, but there's no doubt that it's going on someplaces.

And your point?

Strike