On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:19:41 -0400, Lee Bell <[log in to unmask]> 
wrote:

This is my second application of my quote

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.

having given Lee my 100% endorsement in his very first post
in the Christian/DeBarger/CDNN episode, I now take Lee to 
task on a related, but SEPARATE and DIFFERENT episode, of
Lee's unwarranted, unsubstantiated, and biased conclusion
on the basis of his own ignorance.

>> For the record, IMMARBE released its final report early this year.  
Their
>> conclusion was that the Captain of Wave Dancer was solely at fault, and
>> they banned him from ever again serving on a Belize-registered vessel.
>> They did not, however, go beyond their finding that he was inexperienced
>> and incompetent to ask who made the decision to hire an inexperienced,
>> incompetent person and put him in charge of the safety of twenty-eight
>> passengers and crew -- twenty of whom paid dearly for that decision.

Notice the "official" FINAL report was that the Captain was
"solely" at fault.   The investigators were not exactly blind
to the fact that he was an employee of the Peter Hughes Fleet
and was in contact with Peter.

>
>Or who, in fact, directed him pror to the capsizing.  I recall 
>quite clearly statements that the Captain was in contact with 
>Peter Hughes and was advised to act as he did.

The Captain of a ship has the FINAL say on all matters 
pertaining to the ship, during any incident.  If he was judged
to be "solely responsible", he was solely responsible.

Now I ask Lee, who acts in THIS post as the Yellow Journalist
in the scuba-SE tabloid, just exactly where did HE get "I recall
quite clearly statements ...", and the relevance of those
statements to the establishment of "responsibility" in the 
Final Report, and other reports and the settlement of the
litigation?


>> Peter Hughes was back to "business as usual" (his words) in 
>> Belize within four months of the loss of the Wave Dancer.

Why shouldn't he?  It's his "business".  It was a case of "shit
happened".  It was water over the dam.  Should he give up his
business in Belize, his business in the entire Fleet because of
of ONE incident that had been given its proper airing and
settlement, IN COURT, as well as in the public forums.

The Okeanos Aggressor lost two Israli divers in Cocos Island,
for the first time in about 20 years.  CDNN and and other
Aggressor-bashers were quick to cite that and other "shit
happens" stories to boycott the Aggressor Fleet forever.

Don't be so naive, Lee.  You have had absolutely NO 
experience with either the Peter Hughes Fleet OR the Aggressor
Fleet. 

I have had AT least 25 liveabord trips on each, including
TWO PhD trips after the Belize incident and two Aggressor
trips after the Okeanos incident.

If I find a liveboard time/location on EITHER Fleet that is 
to my liking, I would not hesitate for a nonosecond about
booking on them, based on theie LIFETIME history of 
performance and responsibility!


>Not for everybody.  Based on the way this was handled and the information
>provided by you, and others, information I believe to be reliable, it's 
safe
>to say that neither Peter Hughes, nor any company I find he has an 
interest
>in, will ever receive a dime from me.

And none of those Fleets had ever received a dime from you BEFORE
the Beilize incident either.

What you have shown is only your narrow, biased, and uninformative
decision, on matters you have had ABSOLUTELY no first hand
information about.

If you say I won't patronize the Ph.D Fleet because I don't
like it's "responsibility waiver" which all passengers MUST
sign, to release the crew, the Fleet of ALL responsibilities
in the event of accidents, deaths, etc., even if the crew
is "negligent";  or if you refuse to patronize the Fleet 
because of its diving RULES or policies;  or if you refuse
to patronize the Fleet because of 100 others things you
don't like about the Fleet that's COMMON to them all, then
it's a completely different matter.

I personally take the position that when I signed the WAIVER
that I release the Fleet of ALL responsibilties, then whether
that piece of paper has any leg to stand on in a COURT is
irrelevant to ME, because it's "my word" that supercedes
ALL legal mumble-jumble, and weaselly whining that are left
for cretins who call themselves "lawyers".

By the same token, when I make the vow, "to death do we part"
when I married my wife, I mean that 100%, no ifs, no buts.
That's one of the positions of the Catholic Church I support.
But even the Catholics find all kind of excuses to disvow
a vow.

If you DON'T intend to keep a VOW, without condition, then
DON'T MAKE it.

If you DON'T intend to keep your part of a SIGNED WAIVER
of Release (or all crew responsibilities, including 
negligence on their part) then DON'T sign it.

I am 100% inflexible about these no-weasel PRINCIPLE of 
mine.  I know nearly 100% of the world disagree with me
(so what's new?  <g>)  because they are those weasels. <G>

This unexpected Sunday Sermon concludes my stand on the
Belize Wave Dancer and all related matters in life. 

-- Bob.







>
>> I hope that this answers any lingering questions you may have.  If not, 
I
>> will be happy to provide whatever answers I can.  I apologize for the
>> length of this message, but I felt a thorough explanation was justified.
>
>I think so too.  Thanks for sharing.
>
>Lee
>=========================================================================