I did not reply to ANY of Lee's post (however wrong he was), and I
did NOT even comment on posts by Strike and Huw who told Lee how
wrong he was, but THIS one I have to post why Lee is up to his same
old trick of
Misrepresenting me (by saying I said the OPPOSITE of what I said)
Quoting me OUT OF CONTEXT
Makes self-serving LIES otherwise.
Here they are.
On Sun, 4 Mar 2001 20:20:11 -0500, Lee Bell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>David Strike wrote:
>
>> > I find it interesting that you cast pearls of wisdom post wisdom and
>others
>> > spew forth myths and speculations. I find it interesting that your
>> > indication of what exercise may do, based on INSUFFICIENT and
>INCONCLUSIVE
>> > information that APPEARS to be a valid scientific study is neither myth
>nor
>> > speculation.
That's a complete TWIST and DISTORTION of what *I* posted, in my
reply to Confucio (Giovanni):
> On the serious side, it DOES provide an indication that MODERATE
> exercise and whatever elevated breathing or blood flow associated
> with such, is BENEFICIAL rather than detrimental to the avoidance
> of DCS, and while it is not sufficient to be considered conclusive
> by any means, it does have the appearance of a valid scientific
> study, and it should at least put to question the MYTH and
> SPECULATIONS (spewed forth by Confucio's "friend") taken as if
> they had been proven and programmable into any AI computer PROPERLY.
Strike's comment to Lee:
DS>> I always thought that it was a proven fact that fitness to dive
DS>> included being physically fit - and that exercise and conditioning
DS>> was a pre-requisite of such fitness? As far as I was concerned
DS>> this was something proven by the Haldanes' (senior and junior).
DS>> Now you're telling us that this isn't so! (I'm not even going to
DS>> mention the fact that you appear to have missed some humour)
>
Lee> Not me, friend. My statements are words taken directly from Bob's
Lee> post, the relevant portion of which was quoted along with my Lee
Lee> observations. I'm not the one that said the items were
Lee> insufficient, inconclusive or based on studies that only appear
Lee> to be scientific. Those are Bob's words.
Lee certainly did a good job TWISTING my words into something
opposite of what I said! Lee, if you're going to quote "Bob's words",
QUOTE THEM. Not misrepresent them or twist them as Lee always does.
This was my comment on Jean Marc's reference (the medical study):
RF> On the serious side, it DOES provide an indication that MODERATE
RF> exercise and whatever elevated breathing or blood flow associated
RF> with such, is BENEFICIAL rather than detrimental to the avoidance
RF> of DCS, and while it is not sufficient to be considered conclusive
RF> by any means, it does have the appearance of a valid scientific
RF> study, and it should at least put to question the MYTH and
RF> SPECULATIONS (spewed forth by Confucio's "friend") taken as if
RF> they had been proven and programmable into any AI computer PROPERLY.
Strike obviously AGREED with my paragraph, to the effect that exercise
IS BENEFICIAL, as oppose to Giovanni's MYTHS and SPECULATIONS to the
contrary, that exercise leads to DCS.
I worded my paragraph VERY CAREFULLY so as not to overstate or
understate the case of that one controlled study to which Jean-
Marc referred. I don't think Lee is THAT BAD a reader. Lee merely
made a pest of himself TWISTING what I have to say.
Lee>I'm just commenting on Bob's statements that what others post
Lee>are mere myths and speculation,
If Lee had QUOTED me, then there wouldn't be any ambiguity on WHOM
I referred and that there weren't any "others". But that would have
defeated Lee's purpose to TWIST and obfuscate, wouldn't it?
RF> MYTH and SPECULATIONS (spewed forth by Confucio's "friend")
>while what he posts, which in his own words, are based on
>what appears to be scientific but is insufficient and inconclusive, isn't
>myth nor specualtion, but rather pearls of wisdom. I might have found more
>humor in Bob's post had he not been quite specific in pointing out that
>there was no smiley following his characterization of others as swine.
I was specifically addressing Giovanni's (Confucio's) NON-REPLY to
my serious comments and questions. That was the ONLY SWINE in
question.
Nobody else took offense to THAT statement of mine except Lee, and
ONLY because Lee twisted and misquoted what I had to say!
Strike continued to Lee:
DS>> You'll pardon me if I suggest that you stop using the all-embracing
DS>>"we" until you're certain that it includes absolutely everybody in
DS>>a group! (also no smiley)
>
Lee>I not only pardon you, I appologize for appearing to include you.
Lee>I appear to be mistaken in my assumption that you would be as
Lee>offended at being called a swine <no smiley> as I was.
Strike wasn't offended because he is a careful reader, and UNDERSTOOD
perfectly what I had to say.
>I am personally offended both at the
>presumption that what others believe without conclusive support is myth and
>speculation while what Bob believes without conclusive support is pearls of
>wisdom.
>
>Lee
TWIST and DISTORT all you want. The evidence is to the contrary to
EVERYTHING you've posted, in reply to Strike's criticism of what
YOU posted.
For your post in question to which I am clarifying the substance
of your deliberate DISTORTIONS and LIES, I'll call you a SWINE now
for what you have posted.
Lee, ignorance is excusable. Lately, all you have posted in reply
to what OTHER'S reply to me are nothing but your NOISE, usually
based on your own MISREAD or deliberate DISTORTION of what I
have to say.
Why? You think your rhetoric and lies will make you more credible
in the eyes of CASUAL readers on this LIST. The CAREFUL readers
already know what you are!
-- Bob.
|
