On Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:01:19 -0500, Alfred E. Kirkland
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Bob,
>
><<<This is just ONE of many, posted by Trey (aka G. Irvine III),>>>
>
>    With all due respect, , , , I've seen (as I'm sure you and many
>others on this list have) George attack pretty much everyone who doesn't
>aspire to his "Way-of-thinking". He also does this in the same manner
>displayed in the paragraph you've posted here. I've seen him comment
>(using the word loosely <G>) about most of the other certifying
>agencies, , , the "Principals" of most of the other agencies, , , as
>well as the "Dead" who didn't  "Do it the Right Way", , , !!  He's done
>this for years!!

Pretty accurate characterization.

But unless you assume George to be wrong ALL of the time when he took
a poster to task when the POSTER was WRONG, then, your blanket
indictment of George is indeed "ad hominem", rather than stick to
the cases in question regarding Lee.


>I'm sure you must have other examples to make the point
>you're trying to make.

I have no BETTER example, which characterized Lee so succinctly and
ACCURATELY, based on Lee's posts in techdiver.  There were plenty of
OTHERS who said the same about the same articles Lee posted, in less
colorful terms, but basically the SAME in substance.  Why don't you
go to that group and read those for yourself?

>Using George (regardless of his high level of
>respect with regards to his ability) lacks credibility for me!!

That's exactly ONE of the reasons I quoted George because he is
known for HIS expertise on matters of SCUBA equipment and skills
Lee preached THERE, to George and others who knew infinitely more
about those subject than Lee did.

If I quoted anyone else, you (especially Lee) would have raised
legitimate questions as to why THAT person is more to be believed
on THOSE SUBJECTS under discussion.

So, your own analysis lacks credibility and fairness.

If you want to make a case that Lee was UNFAIRLY attacked by George
and the rest of the others in the techdiver group, on the TECHNICAL
issues Lee preached THERE, make THAT your point.

As I said, *I* thought George characterized Lee PERFECTLY, based on
my own long-time, first-hand, experience dealing with Lee (in
similar cases of Lee's "discussions").

There are some VERY respectable members on THIS LIST who shared
George's characterization about Lee, though we ALL share your same
GENERAL characterization about George.  George is not wrong ALL
of the time, don't you know?  In the instances about Lee's posts
in that group, he seemed to be perfectly on target.

Finally, I cited George only because he ASKED for it.

If you want to discuss Lee's responses to MY posts HERE, why don't
you see how Lee "creatively edited" what I said; deliberately OMITTED
all the pertinent parts I posted as well as what I cited from a
VERY CREDIBLE source on the webpage given in my post; and "creatively
edited" what Robert Delf wrote as if he was supporting Lee, while
Robert was AGREEING with everything (implicitly, in substance) with
the SHOULDER and ARMS (over legs) role in the Crawl, and ESPECIALLY
in distances of 400 or 1500 meters, the "drag theory" of the legs
pointed out by me and Chuck.

That's why I said,

RF> Trey was completely on target in his characterization of your "normal
RF> method", Lee:  bullshit, lies, fabrications, and twisted "facts".  I
RF> could have said that about your preceding response to my post.

Take Trey out of the picture if you wish.

If you want to further pursue this matter, go back to my post, Lee's
response (omitting all pertinent FACTS), and my preceding paragraph,
and talk about whether Lee had "twisted facts" in his response to
what I posted, and "twisted facts" in his version of what Robert Delf
wrote, or whether I was wrong (other than in the nitpick sense as
Lee did) in the two lines Lee chose to pick on:

RF> In above-water swim without fins (crawl stroke for speed), the
RF> actions are in the ARMS and SHOULDERS -- you simply drag your
RF> legs along.

Especially in the CONTEXT of the rest of the paragraph,

RF> In DIVING related "swim" underwater, ALL your actions are in \
RF> the LEGS, with FINS -- and there's no movement in the arms.
RF> In short, those are two VERY DIFFERENT kind of "swimming skills",
RF> and the WRONG skill is tested by agencies, and arbitrary
RF> distances/times required without good cause.

Your discussion of the foregoing, and not until then, will provide
credibility about YOUR credibility in questioning the credibility of
Trey (and mine in quoting Trey) regarding Lee's actual responses in
Scuba-SE, about the Crawl.

-- Bob.