David Strike wrote:

> > I'm quite sorry to see that you're not the man I thought you were.  It's
> > OK for Bob to speak for you, but not for me to do so.  I expected more
of
> > you, at least an impartial position on mistakes made by both sides.

> I earlier wrote - when you chose to throw your body between Christian and
> Bob - that the danger in crusading behaviour was the collateral damage
that
> it invariably caused.

That you did.

> As far as impartial behaviour is concerned it seems
> to me to be a very subjective concept and rarely if ever something that
> opposing sides in a disagreement are willing to recognise.

I'm pretty sure you read Bob's statements as speaking for you and I'm also
pretty sure that you remember criticizing me for the same thing.  I don' t
consider this as impartial.  Perhaps you do.

> As to whether you consider this imAs far
> being the man that you thought I was, I long ago learned the folly of
rising
> to bait of that sort.  :-)

No bait, just disappointment.  You're not obligated to be what I hope you
are, think you are or wish you were.  The real question is whether you are
the man you think you are and that's a question only you can ask or answer.

> And you have admitted to purposely baiting Bob . . .

Correct.  I baited him and admitted it.  I baited him more than once.  My
statement regarding the EPIRB used by the Aggressor without including how I
knew was bait too.  Bob immediately swallowed it hook, line and sinker by
stating that I didn't know which unit they were using.  He had no basis for
his statement and, as I have previously revealed, I did, in fact, know at
the time.

> You did, however, make a post with the subject heading: Re: [SCUBA-SE]
> Strike, don't be an a** (was: EPIRB)

> As you seem happy to contradict your own standards of behaviour - even if
> you were too coy to call me an "ass", (something , by the way, that I find
> about as offensive as gnat's piss) - then surely you must have expected
some
> sort of response?

I responded to a post with this subject, I didn't originate it.  If that
subject had been my creation, my statement about your not being the man I
thought you were would have been different.  I would indeed have expected a
reaction, a much stronger one than yours was.

> My concern in this matter is that in purposely setting out to
> bait Bob, you're creating the same environment that preceded the break up
of
> Scuba-L - a forum filled with people and topics that appealed to me.

Criticism accepted.  I first became involved in response to comments Bob
made in public.  Since then, I have baited him, something that is remarkably
easy to do.  He's very predictable, another characteristic he tends to
assign to others.  What has been going on is, in fact, very much like what
went on in Scuba-L and, not surprisingly, one of the parties is the same.
Bob has suggested that I am acting like Ron Lee, Jan and others who are not
held in particularly high esteem here.  What he has avoided saying is that
he's acting as Bob, as he did in Scuba-L and as he has here.  The big
differences are:
1. I'm not afraid of Bob like those who tried to conspire in private appear
to have been.
2. There's nobody here inclined to censor the participants.  Call it
collateral damage for the right to speak freely.

> I did so - in August.  Don't be lazy.  Read the archives.

Having been redirected to the thread, I'll try to find time to do that.

> It may well have been a cheap shot - but no cheaper than the ones that
> you've been hurling around.

Criticism accepted.  In fact, mine were almost certainly cheaper.

> As for someone stooping to a new low by
> pretending to be me?  Well!  They'd need an awful lot of mining equipment
to
> get lower than me!  :-)

Stop into Rec.Scuba again to see how wrong you are.  When Deja.Com went
down, about half the list, all fakes, disappeared.  I would not expect to
find that here, but there's no doubt that it's going on someplaces.

Lee