On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 22:26:28 -0400, Lee Bell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Reef Fish wrote:
>
>> The last line was my PREDICTION about your future posts -- which you
>> obligingly fulfilled.  You're so predictable.
>
>Yep.  We can count on you to attack people and you can count on me to point
>it out when you do.

Who appointed you to be that role and act as Chief Obfuscator on
this list as you're doing NOW?   Let me EXPOSE you.

I pointed out your illogical, contradictory, and unsubstantiated
statements.  You called it attacking PEOPLE because I pointed out
the FLAWS in the SUBSTANCE (actually the lack thereof) in your posts.
Call it what you wish ... it was the GARBAGE that came out of the
mouths of "people" that I chose to point out, WITH substantiation
by me.

Good ole Lee.  You can always count on him to make SELF-SERVING Public
Service Announcements about HIMSELF, rather than substantiate his own
claims.  Below is a PERFECT example:

>> Not content with having
>> made posts of 130 lines and 57 lines attacking me without adding any
>> new substance to your previous posts nor any substantiation of your
>> claim about "Molassas Reef was still the number one most visited dive
>> site in the world",
>
>I did not claim this and your insistance on what you chose to perceive
>is of no consequence to me.

WEASEL ALERT!  (That's not a PERSONAL attack.  Only drawing attention
to your ACT of trying to weasle out of something you claimed.  by now,
Lee's trademark as an Obfuscator.)

You claimed it.  This was what you said,

Lee> "Last time I saw data, Molassas Reef was still the number one most
Lee> visited dive site in the world."

You claimed you saw DATA that supported YOUR claim.  When I challenged
you about the SOURCE of your DATA, this was the "reference" you gave:

Lee> "I haven't the slightest idea where I saw it, but I've seen it
Lee> more than once.  It might have been Rondale or any of several other
Lee> equally reliable sources."

So, the statement was YOUR claim, in YOUR WORDS, based on YOUR vague
recall of something you claimed you read.   You couldn't cite ANY
reference OR DATA, OR source of data to substantiate your claim,
that's all!

Go on ... keep weaseling.


>I see you chose to ignore your mistakes, repeatedly quoting Rondales
>while continuing to accuse me of doing so,

It's RODALE's, not Rondales.  MOLASSES Reef, not Molassas.

YOU were the one who made the unspecific and wishy-washy reference to
it, so I followed up on how ridiculous Rodale's "TOP 100" articles were.

Lee, since you can't remember ANY reference, and you're always too LAZY
to look for it or don't know how, let me help you out on THIS ONE.
You vaguely recalled "RONDALES".  That's enough of a clue for me to
have tracked down THE article -- which was the ONLY TIME, ONLY PLACE,
any magazine in the entire world rated "Molasses Reef" as ranking
"1st" in anything!  It was in an old issue of Rodale's!   Go find it
yourself.  ;-)


>I also see that you chose
>to provide no support whatsoever for what were your conclusions,

I provided PLENTY of reasons and references to debunk your claim in
my original reply, and now.


>as opposed to my recounting of someone else's.

RECOUNTING?  As in :

Lee> "I haven't the slightest idea where I saw it, but I've seen it
Lee> more than once.  It might have been Rondale or any of several ot

What kind of RECOUNTING is that?   Where is the DATA you claimed to
have seen?


Finally, you were reply to my post in which I pointed out your wrong
accusation of me, giving ALL the specifics WHY you were totally wrong
when you said:

Lee  >Nice job, Bob.  You attributed this to me without including a
Lee  >single word posted by me.  Ind of takes personal attacks to a
Lee  >new level.  It does not surprise me that you're the one do so.

Where is your RETRACTION?


>Put up or shut up . . . if you can.
>
>Lee

You have NEVER put up to anything when challenged, except lengthy
rhetoric and further obfuscation, as in your 130-line and 57-line
replies which I chose to ignore because your had nothing new to say!

For you, just try STFU when you have NOTHING new to contribute or add,
starting NOW.  Else, PUT UP and explain or RETRACT your false accusation
in your post in question:

Lee  >Nice job, Bob.  You attributed this to me without including a
Lee  >single word posted by me.

-- Bob.