On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 21:51:52 -0500, Reef Fish wrote:

I swore that I wouldn't do this:  prolong the senseless agony of yet another
list that I've enjoyed going down the tubes, but ....

(snip)
> That was why Lee Bell was able to rally up his IDIOTIC pals
> in rec.scuba to not only gang flame me in rec.scuba.locations,
> but crossposted their flames to other newsgroups that were
> not involved at all with the argument about BUOYANCY!!

> NOW, Strike suddenly came out of nowhere in that argument

I actually come from somewhere!  In this case, it was having read your post
on SE that again pointed up your ongoing squabbles with Lee Bell on
rec.scuba.locations!  Frankly, I don't give a rat's arse what either of you
bitch about on other lists.  I do, however, get the shits when my name is
dragged into it - in whatever way - when I've asked politely that you desist
from doing so.  (The rationale being that I have no interest in gang-bangs,
or in posting in those groups. And the fact that I find it inhibiting as far
as posting to SE is concerned.)

>to
> proclaim:
 > >You're both fucking, know-nothing, self-centred idiots with
> >only a ha'pence of diving experience each.

My apologies for the fact that it was so brief.  I was going to add to it
substantially, but I was running late to meet the folks for an early morning
dive.

> On the buoyancy control PHYSICS and PHYSIOLOGY, I am not only
> going to refute Strike's indictment of MY "know-nothing",
> because I DO know the physics and physiology behind the
> fact that you CANNOT compensate a 6 lb differential in
> weight during a dive by changing the breathing pattern
> as Lee argued, but I am going to ask Strike,

> KNOWING as much as you do, WHY THE FUCK did you NOT
> say anything to REFUTE Lee Bell's error as the cited
> Discussants above did?

There are many reasons.  Including:

1.  I may just have hit the delete button rather than reading all of the
undoubted pearls of wisdom that spill from the mouths of you both.
2. I may not have considered the topic relevant to real diving practice.
3. I may not have considered it worthwhile stating an opinion.  (In the same
way that I no longer bother mentioning the potential hazards of Deep Air
Diving to you.)
4. I may not have cared what either of you claim.
5. I may have thought that anything that I did say would wind up on another
list.

> This is SCUBA discussion.   I would go so far as to say
> it is everyone RESPONSIBILITY to tell bullshitters like
> Lee to keep his BS to himself -- as several of the
> Discussants DID say, and said it forcefully.

Does that responsibility extend to all list participants when they get get
fed up with bull-shit?

> That would have ended THAT prolonged "argument", because
> you LET the ARGUMENT go on.  (Which was FINE).  But then
> DON'T come out putting Lee and me in the same slot of

I didn't let any argument go on!!!!  Anything that I might say has as much
credibility in cyberspace as anyone else's opinion.

> >You're both fucking, know-nothing

As I said, it was brief!  I could have expanded considerably.  But it would
have only had the same effect as a bloke having a piss in his trousers while
wearing a dark suit!:  I'd have got a nice warm feeling, but nobody else
would have noticed.

> I will be PERFECTLY happy to listen to ANY criticism from
> ANYONE about what I said about neutral buoyancy in my
> argument with Lee.  If I am wrong in any of the techinical
> respect of the argument.

I now rarely bother to dig into the technical aspects of any of your posts -
or Lee Bell's.

> IMHSHO, you should have been out there TELLING Lee Bell
> that same thing as what the cited Discussant DID.

Fortunately, I'm an individual.  Equally fortunately - or not? - I rarely
listen to what people tell me that I SHOULD do!  Particularly when they have
a vested interest in the outcome because it meshes in with their
egocentricity.  That holds especially true when my own meagre demands have
been ignored.  (And don't give me any cods about 'public good', 'truth',
etc.  It's all just point-scoring in a boring spectacle that's been going on
for at least six years between Lee Bell and yourself.)

> If you didn't want to do it, for whatever reason, then
> you have NO RIGHT to come out swinging as you did,
> indiscriminantly, and without SUBSTANCE as to your
> charge or our "fucking, know-nothing" verdict of yours.

I really, really hesitate to say this.  Mainly because I've seen it written
so often over the years in posts about you.  But isn't that a case of the
pot calling the kettle black?  (In the flesh, you have proven to be one of
the nicest and most generous people that I've ever met.  But your on-line
persona is not one that I'd wish on anybody!)

(snip)

>     Strike has done an excellent job of staying away
>     from most of the arguments.

No!  You've done that for me by cross-posting comments of mine onto other
lists.  I've elected not to participate.  A subtle difference!

> 2.  A reader who chose NOT to engage in a particular
>     debate or discussion of a TECHINICAL TOPIC in
>     SCUBA, has NO RIGHT, no matter how bloody knowledgeable
>     you are in scuba matters, to make broad, unsubstantiated
>     swings at a topic in which you chose NOT to participate
>     in, and had contributed ABSOLUTELY NOTHING since the
>     debate started.

That's guaranteed to win over my non-cooperation! And not something that's
ever held you back in the past!  (The reason that lots of readers choose not
to participate in these debates is because they don't want to fall victim to
vituperative remarks.  Most of all, however, because they find them boring
and tedious and absolutely nothing to do with the real world of diving.)

 >     IMHSHO, Strike is guilty of (1) being IRRESPONSIBLE in
>     not correcting Lee's blatent errors in scuba physics and
>     physiology;  and (2) in his unwarranted outburst, having
>     chosen NOT to engage in that particular techincal scuba
>     discussion.

When you both, (you and Lee Bell) get your instructor's rating and accept
responsibility for actually teaching people to dive, then I'll be more
inclined to listen to you.  When either of you have accepted responsibility
for the safety and well-being of others on a regular basis, then I'll be
more inclined to listen to you.  When you've stood by a few grave-sides
because people didn't do what you taught them, then I'll be more inclined to
listen to you.  In the interim, both of you - as far as I'm concerned - are
just gas-bags looking for the respect that both of you fail to bestow on
others!

> Anyone is welcome to rebut any of what I've said in this post.

Would it do any good?

Strike