On Thu, 3 Aug 2000 01:06:03 -0400, Lee Bell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You should have read what I had posted in reply to Mike Wallace

>  Wed, 2 Aug 2000 23:47:44 -0400

and to Mika,

>  Thu, 3 Aug 2000 00:13:08 -0400

about an hour before you started admiring the movement of your
own mouth.  :-)


>> And what is?  The Duane and Bibbs at 130?
>
>The Duane and Bibb (I don't think there's an s on Bibb,

They did missed that one, didn't they?   And we ALL missed MY
misspelling of "Chattanooga" as "Chatanooga" in a LONG thread,
didn't we?   Lee, spelling correction WAS never the issue.  Only
YOU made it one in order to gloss over your errors of SUBSTANCE.

>150 feet or more and even then, are
>not considered particularly deep by our considerable contingent
>of trimix and heliox divers.

I had already clarified that those are NOT what I call "recreational
divers".  Go argue with the dive industry personnel.


>You have, by your own statement, found the magazines you have
>read to be shy about talking about good wreck dives below 150 fsw.

Lee, you overlooked the keyword "not" in the above MIS-reference.

>Either that, or you're calling those who told you about the good
>wrecks you didn't know about liers.  You've already said I'm one.
>How many more did you just include?

In the case above, it wasn't an intended LIE as the other cases
were that I called you a "liar" (no, I am NOT picking your
misspelling here;  just the fact that you LIED).  Here, it just
showed that your eagerness to flame blinded you to the extent
that you overlooked the keyword "not" in my sentence to give
it the completely OPPOSITE meaning for you to mouth-dance on
ACCUSING ME, based on your OWN error in reading, in exactly the
same manner you misread my reply to Viv and flamed me for it!

In THIS csse, I hope you'll not mouth dance for three more days
before trying to ascertain that you MISREAD and made yet another
FALSE ACCUSATION based on your own faulty reading!

-- Bob.