On Tue, 5 Feb 2002 10:56:54 -0500, Alfred E. Kirkland
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Bob,
>
>    I'm not going to perpetuate this discussion by doing a "Tit for Tat"
>with anyone.

You were the one who brought it up.  You could have stopped after you
and I both had our say, couldn't we?  As you'll see, you've brought
up nothing new that had not already been said and responded to.
Nevertheless, I'll repeat my response, with different emphasis
just for YOUR clarification.


< repetition of Alfred's opinion about G. IRVINE snipped >

> Based on those beliefs I
>(still) come to the conclusion that your use of the quote from
George>lacks credibility!!

You're certainly entitled to the repetitive statement of your opinion.

But you were and still are accusing ME for lack of credibility for
quoting George -- ignoring the explanations I had already given in
my reply to you.

My post was my reply to LEE, and about LEE.

The use of Irvine's quote was only because it fitted perfectly my
opinion about Lee on Lee's posts IN GENERAL, and his post in question
in Scuba-SE in particular.  I had already explained that if you felt
Lee was unjustly accused by Irvine, deal with that as a SEPARATE issue.
The same goes if you felt I unjustly accused Lee of "twisting facts"
and whatever else, in my reply to LEE.  We are not talking ABOUT
Trey (George Irvine III) here, only the suitability of one of his
many quotes about LEE, for Lee's behavior in Scuba-SE.


>  It also appears as though you've read some of his "Body of Character
>Assessment Work". <G>

Alfred, from your deep pre-occupation about Irvine, to the extent of
blinding yourself to issues about OTHERS simply because Irvine had
said bad things about THAT person that happened to fit the occasion
about THAT person, I come to the inescapable conclusion that you had
been maligned by Irvine (once, perhaps more), and you don't want
anyone to assess YOUR character based on what Irvine said about you.

If that's the case, I think you grossly underestimated the intelligence
of this readership.


>How do you think your diving techniques, , , your
>diving opinions, , , your diving configurations would hold up to his
>scrutiny?? <G>

That's IRRELEVANT.  He and I dive in completely different environments.
I never felt the need or compulsion to go to techdiver to tell him
or anyone else in cave-diving how to dive in warm-water, no-overhead,
no-obligated-deco environments for which MY configuration is obviously
different (and more suitable for MY diving) than those specifically
designed for cave-divers.

Lee, nevertheless, having perfected (he thought) his rhetoric in
rec.scuba, while ignorant about cave or technical diving, chose to
wade into techdivers to try his hand at taking on the cavers at
THEIR trade, including Trey.  Lee got what he deserved there.

And if Irvine steps out of the cave environment to preach in this or
any other open water forum about the "one size fits all" theory, as
Carl Heinzl did, in his response to my "counterexamples", to the
extreme of trying to justify wearing a DRYSUIT, with multiple
backup lights, etc. in doing an open-water dive in COZUMEL, as in

> From: Carl Heinzl ([log in to unmask])
> Subject: How long is long enough? (was: question)
> Newsgroups: bit.listserv.scuba-l
> Date: 1996/05/21

I'll tell Irvine exactly the same thing I told Heinzl.  But I don't
think George would be THAT stupid.  :-)  Actually Carl wasn't that
stupid either.  He doesn't practice what he preached when he dives
in Cozumel or elsewhere.  He just liked to ARGUE back in those days,
even if he had to carry his argument to ridiculous extremes.

Now, does THAT tell you enough why YOUR questions are impertinent?

>How do you think your diving techniques, , , your
>diving opinions, , , your diving configurations would hold up to his
>scrutiny?? <G>

The short answer is, I am sufficiently confident about the techniques
suitable for MY types of warm-water diving, and my diving configurations
that I don't NEED any crutch to lean on for support, be it George,
or anyone else.

And finally, lest anyone thinks I have any respect for George as
a PERSON, or that I had not dealt with him personally on techdiver,
look up the techdiver archives with the keyword "Chuck Jones", and
you should find plenty.

Far easier still, now that we have Googles.  Go to the Advanced
search and specify:

Keyword:    Chuck Jones
newsgroup:  rec.scuba
Author:     [log in to unmask]

and you'll get FOUR postings of mine ABOUT George Irvine, including
one whose subject was "Re: George Irvine".

Al, THAT was discussing Irvine, based on my encounter with him in
techdiver!  That was one of the instances that George was DEAD WRONG.
Worse than DEAD WRONG.   He happened to be RIGHT, about Lee!

As I had said a thousand times in scuba groups:  I treat each posting
on a CASE by CASE basis.  You should try to do the same and not
stereotyping anyone, not even George!

You're barking up the wrong tree here when we were discussing LEE!

-- Bob.



-- Bob.