SCUBA-SE Archives

June 2000

SCUBA-SE@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reef Fish <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
SouthEast US Scuba Diving Travel list <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 28 Jun 2000 04:56:34 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (104 lines)
On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 01:55:34 -0400, Quinn H. <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Reef Fish wrote:  <in reply to Lee Bell>
>
>>I find that approach very curious.  But who am I to argue.  It's YOUR
>>business.  But don't try to apply it to ME jsut because that's the
>>way you react, no more so than your inability to see anything wrong
>>with what Quinn Harry did -- made accusations about me without having
>>read ANYTHING I wrote.  As I said then, Lee, you have a very curious
>>sense of VALUE and FAIR PLAY.
>
>You've stated this several times now. It's time you got it correct Bob.

I have it correct all along.  Since you seem to want to rehash this
point, I'll be glad to do so for you, just this ONE MORE TIME.  Don't
EVER come back to white wash the CRIME you've committed, by self-
serving remarks, and juxtaposed chronology to try to OBFUSCATE.

You THINK just because it happened a month ago, you can get away with
your LIE now.  NOT when you're dealing with ME.

Observe the TIME/DATE chronology VERY CAREFULLY below:


>I made accusations about you that could not be substantiated at the
>time. I never said, on the phone to you, or by posting, that I never
>read your posts.

Of course you couldn't substantiate it.   SEE WHY BELOW.


>In fact, and I've stated this before, I do read all your posts.

You said it AFTER your letter of accusation had already been
sent.  You said the above, for the first time, on May 26, LONG
AFTER you had written your letter on May 22, sent on May 23.

>I did write that I indiscriminately use the delete key for chronic
>flamers, and was stating that in generic terms, about past lists and
>notidentifying any person in particular.  You took it upon yourself
>to wear the moniker.

Indeed.  You posted that on May 22.  The SAME DAY you wrote your
letter of accusation of me.  This was what you wrote on May 22:

> I am not interested in what a chronic flamer has to say.  Period.
> I indiscriminately delete that person's message , without regard
> to subject line, thread, or date/time.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You already had me targeted.  You wrote your letter of accusation
of me on May 22.  Quinn, how could you POSSIBLY have read any of
my posts AT THE TIME, and have made your statement above?

That's prima facie evidence NUMBER 1.

But the REAL EVIDENCE was that the CONTENT of your letter CLEARLY
showed that you couldn't POSSIBLY have read any of my posts (such
as accusing me of using obscenity in my posts, and all the rest
of the allegations that were absolutely FALSE, and you have already
retracted and apologized (to me and to a group of subscribers on
THIS List, in private correspondence).

Get it now, Quinn?

------------------------------------------------------------------

The rest is irrelevant to the FACTS above proving you sent your
letter of accusation in the ABSENCE of any first hand knowledge of
what I have ever posted, UP TO THE TIME you wrote you letter of
FALSE accusation, on May 22!


>It was not my intention to have your userid revoked, an action
>caused by my admitedly poor judgement, and for which I've apologized.

For which I have given you credit.  But that does NOT changing the
FACTS surrounding your CRIME.  Just don't try to come back and
obfuscate what went on and try to sweep your dirt under the rug!

>
>>According to you, I should just ignore such.  I should be secure enough
>>to let people like that (and YOU which you have often done) mug me as
>>they please.
>
>I believe she was paying you a compliment on Scuba-L. Is it possible that
>you entirely missed Sherry's point?  :-)

You are just as CLUENESS now as you were THEN.  The cited paragraph
was my comment on what Lee Bell wrote!   Not what Sherry wrote.

Quinn, whenever I use you case as reference, it's for the REASON that
something should have been LEARNED from what you've done that SHOULDN'T
have occurred, and should NEVER occur, in the future.

Just accept the FACT that you've done it (as you retracted your
accusation and apologize).

You're welcome here to post and contribute.

You're NOT WELCOME to post what you did just now.  Save this post
and check the FACTS, in the archives!

-- Bob.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2