On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 01:10:09 -0400, Lee Bell <[log in to unmask]> 
wrote:

>"Don Ward" wrote:
>
>>I don't think Dave owes anyone any explanation, least of all this 
group.  I
>>also find it especially distasteful to post
>> such a thing and ask for a public explanation.
>
>I don't think you're in a position to speak for Dave.

I just came off sci.stat.math, citing myself, in defense of one
IDIOT of that group (Luis A. Afonso, a Portuguese nonstatistician
whose atrocious English was the least of his problems) against 
the unwarranted verbal assaults by the biggest IDIOT of that
group (Richard Ulrich, who claimed to be a Ph.D. statistician
and verified by me to be last emplyed at the Psychiatry Dept
of the University of Pittsburg as an Asst. Professor) who 
have provided sufficient evidence in his years in that group
to be unmistakenly a "malpractioner", a "statistical quack"
and all those terms I had labeled him and substantiated WHY.

The reason for the above lengthy intro is the inevitable 
parallel that I perceive in the application of my quote
to this group and some of the personalities in this group:

RF (Oct)>  I judge everyone's post on the merit or demerit of 
RF (Oct)>  what was ACTUALLY SAID in a given post, not on the 
RF (Oct)>  person's life time batting average.

Afonso made a good joke out of one of Ulrich's many blunders,
and Ulrich attacked Afonso on his English, near-zero lifetime
batting average, etc., which was TRUE, except for that post.


NOW, we can get on with my comment about this Wave Dancer,
DeBarger episode re-visited.  This SINGLE post will be my
ONLY follow-up to all of the posts about THAT event.


I strongly support Lee's comment about Don's unwarranted
assumption, in Don's unwarranted role to speak for Dave.


I've read though ALL the opinions expressed by all sides up
to this point, and I can say that the ONLY POST and opinion
I can endorse and support 100% is Dave's response to Christian's
questions -- which seems to ME more officiously inquisitive
than offensive.

Don might have said (and might have indeed said) that my
VERY DETAILED and PRECISE questions to Dave DeBarger, at the
time the incident broke out, in scuba-SE, as "distasteful
and offensive" whereas they were a matter of fact finding
AND clearifying what DAVE said -- and Dave gave detailed
responses to the point that removed all doubts in my mind
as to what actually transpired, from the single eye-
witness we had, and what he reported.  If was over a SERIES
of questions and follow-ups that I was able to get a much
better understanding of what the crew and captain actually
DID during the HOUR after the few SECONDS Dave reported 
that he was lifted out of the boat by someone, without
giving any ensuing details until I asked.

Dave did the same, except this time it was his response to
Christian on CDNN's second-hand report about Dave, not what 
Dave said himself, first hand, to this group. 

Dave's detailed reply without any fanfare accomplished
exactly the same -- it provided ALL the answers to ALL the
questions, more or less trolled by the CDNN reporter,
which as Lee and others had already observed, to be a 
publication that has proven itself to be mostly Yellow 
Journalism in the worst tradition of the worst tabloid 
"news" in existence.

In that respect, given Christian's post, and his own 
self defence, I am of the strong opinion that Don Ward's
hasty attack was completely gratuitous.  Christian might
have been accused of biting the bait of CDNN, but his 
sense of inquiry, without any DEMAND for any answer (as
Don erroneously assumed) brought out the best of all 
worlds -- the only WINNER in this episode -- INFORMATION
and gracious and factual response from Dave Debarger!

>
>Frankly, I think Christian's statement and question are reasonable.   I do
>not take them as critical.  Instead, I take them as an alert to less than
>complementary reports and as an invitation to explain in a forum that is
>predisposed to listening to Dave carefully and with respect and to giving
>him the benefit of the doubt.

Carefully worded by Lee and quite nicely and correctly summarized.

>
>If Dave chooses to respond, I'll certainly read what he has to say.  

Dave did, very nicely and thoroughly.

> Whether
>he responds or not, however, I give little credibility to the article 
which,
>in my opinion is clearly biased and clearly in conflict with statements 
made
>by others who were there before, during and/or after the tragedy that Dave
>survived.
>
>Lee
>=========================================================================

Score:  Lee 10.  Don 0.

-- Bob.