Reef Fish wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 16:52:41 +0900, J.M. Vitoux
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote, in reply to Strike:
>
> >I'll follow your advice and won't reply to Bob.
>
> Good.  But if and when you do, stick to discussing SCUBA, or at
> least stay away from your personal attack of MY POST about
> others that had nothing to do with Jean-Marc!

Rest assured that if and when I do discuss scuba, it won't be
with you.

>
> >
> >In essence I take exception to Bob's ( apparently
> >succesfull ) attempt at censorship on Lee.
>
> That is where you are TOTALLY wrong because you didn't bother
> to read what I had posted on the subject.
>
> There was NO censorship on Lee, not even an "attempt" one.
>
> On the other hand, you Jean-Marc was ATTEMPTING VERY HARD to
> CENSOR ME for posting my opinion and warning about the behavior
> of others.  Jean-Marc (and a few other unsuccessful posters
> in Scuba-L) were ATTEMPTING to censor ME.

I'm not following you. Are you implying that I was siding with
Hugh and Nick when scuba-l split? Can you precise your gross
misconception about my attempted censorship (you wouldn't be
lying, would you)?

> That kind of attempt
> is DOOMED to failure because I am the strongest OPPONENT to
> any form of censorship.  But I'll be damned if I let Lee or
> anybody else publicly, repeately, and deliberately LIE about
> me, without ME stating what action I am ENTITLED to take (as a
> Citizen of the USA in self-defence) if he didn't stop the LYING
> part.

You are so much against censorship that you use threats to
silence the opposition.

>
> Perhaps Jean-Marc is influenced by the Napoleonic Law that a
> person (Defendant) is GUILTY if charged by the Plaintiff (Jean-Marc)
> unless proven innocent by the Defendant (which is impossible
> in this case since Jean-Marc's mind is already made up, and he
> refuses to look rationally at the evidence, if he even bothered
> to look at the evidence AT ALL).

French Law doesn't work that way. Your comment is
inaccurate/irrelevant.





>
> Lee is free to post here ANY TIME on ANY SUBJECT (except deliberate
> LIES about ME and call me a liar on his own lies!), and that was
> clearly stated in my WARNING, and in my ONE, DETAILED explanation
> post that ended the episode for everyone else

Lee is free to post... except...

I see...

As for the others, I didn't see anyone coming back saying they
approved of your post. I won't claim to speak for any one but me
but I don't think your explanations were convincing.

>
>        EXCEPT for one self-righteous, and self-contradictory
>        (attempting to censor me) Jean-Marc Vitoux.

Again, where is the censorship?

>
> I simply demanded (having repeatedly stated and warned him in the
> preceding 6 MONTHS -- yes, since August 2000, when I STOPPED
> responding to Lee's posts) that he stop using LIES about me as bait,
> while continuing the same LIES by misrepresentation and misquotes
> when my QUOTES are clearly in the posts and in the archives.
>
> I warned Lee that if he was going to LIE about ME, and SLANDER
> me personally and publicly, THEN he had better do it on his OWN
> time, and not on the time for which *I* am a part-payer.

Yes, you not only threatened him with litigation (act which I
find offensive in itself, last time I checked, he didn't say you
were a pedophile, drug dealer or something to that effect) but
you threatened to tell on him to his employer (whether your
allegation is with merit or not, I don't have a clue). As much as
I found attempts to get back to you through Clemson despicable, I
find your threat to get back to Lee through his employer
despicable too. I'm consistent. You're not.

<snip>

>
> It's between the two of us.  It's none of Jean-Marc's damned
> business.  PERIOD.   I had already stated in my general post.
> I am re-stating it now.

And I believe it is Kate who immediately pointed out the obvious.
If you wanted it to be private, why did you post.

>
> >I came to the conclusion that his behaviour cannot
> >be accepted anymore. To the point that I refuse to
> >be associated with him in any way other than
> >confronting him when justified. There is a limit
> >to what is acceptable and what is not. I believe
> >that continuing to discuss with him is in effect
> >encouraging/legitimizing his chronic misbehaviour.
> >
> >Jean-Marc
>
> That's your OPINION, Jean-Marc.  You are ENTITLED to come to
> whatever INVALID conclusion of yours.  You are ENTITLED to your
> OPINION, but you're NOT JUSTIFIED in your "confrontation"
> by practicing CENSORSHIP yourself when your notion of
> censorship on my part was only ALLEGED by you, without
> basis, as I have re-explained here.

Again. What censorship on my part ( yours is clear)?

>
> This is the FINAL post on the subject between Lee and me.
> No one has to agree on either of us.  But I don't have to
> put up with any of Jean-Marc's self-righteous acts of
> calling ME names without just cause, by you Jean-Marc or
> anyone else!

I didn't insult you. You did insult me. :-)

<snip>

>
> Unfortunately for Lee, he is as LEGLESS on his threat (on
> legal grounds alone, let alone moral and ethical grounds) as
> was his lies (on factual grounds).

Bob, You really don't want a vote on who between you and Lee is
morally or ethically bankrupt.

Jean-Marc