On Tue, 1 Aug 2000 18:23:48 -0400, Lee Bell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Reef Fish wrote:
>
>> Here is the definitive analysis to end it all.
>
>Hardly definitive, hardly the end.
>
>> I am tired of Lee's silly GAME and mouth-dance . . .
>
>If you're tired of it and have much more important things to do, then why
>not quite playing the game and the dancing.
>
>> You cited NOTHING.  You don't remember anything.  You're too lazy and/or
>> too ignorant to retrieve/find anything to cite!
>>
>> >I did not once, ever refer to what Rondales said
>> >about Molasses.  I posted I read it somewhere.
>>                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>It is not I who is too lazy, stupid or ignorant.  You first referred to
>Rondales and I responded that I had read it, but did not have any idea
>where.  I only admitted that it might have been in Rondale's after you
>pointed out the fact that Rondale's had posted something to that effect
>previously.  You, on the other hand, first called Rondale's information
>worthless and then proceeded to quote in post after post to support your
>position.  It's not I who is dancing.
>
>> Mon, 31 Jul 2000 18:41:41 -0400, you complained I said you had "read",
>> when you only said you "saw data".  NOW you said you "read it
>> somewhere".  Nicely done, Lee: SELF-CONTRADICTION.   This was
>> your EARLIER complaint (from a different post):
>
>Funny, that's not how I remember it.  I recall complaining that you said I
>stated I had read it in Rondale's and that is the one and only error I
>referred to.  Odd that you have no text to quote on this one, perhaps
>because what you continue to assert has no basis in fact.
>
>You also seem to have conveniently forgotten that I said that whether or
not
>Molassas was or was not the number one most visited (notice I did not
equate
>this with popular) site, there was no denying that thousands visit S.
>Florida to dive every year.  I've seen nothing from you to refute this,
>possibly because there's nothing you can find to refute the truth.
>
>> Where did you see the data, I asked.  Lee replied:
>
>Show this quote from one of your messages.
>
>> Lee>  I haven't the slightest idea where I saw it, but I've seen it more
>> Lee>  than once.  It might have been Rondale
>
>Right.  It might have been Rondale, I don't know.  I have not once defined
>Rondales as the difinitive source or even the source of my information.  I
>read lots of dive magazines and, as it happens, don't place a lot of
>credibility in any of them.  That does not, however, make my statement that
>I read something somewhere any less accurate.  I did read it, and that's
all
>I said.  No matter how many times you claim otherwise, your statements do
>not make anything more or less truthful.
>
>> So, Lee had NO DATA.  NO recollection of WHERE.  NO reference,
>> except "might have been Rondale <sic>".
>
>Never claimed to have the data, never claimed to know where I had seen it.
>Only claimed I did.  Since I did, my claim is accurate and truthful.  Too
>bad you can't say the same.
>
>> That sent me to research just exactly WHERE Rodale's had ranked
>> Molasses Reef "1st" in anything.  Yup.  It appeared THERE okay:
>> This was what I posted in reply to Lee:
>
>OK, so Rondale's did say that.  That still does not mean that's where I
read
>it.  I specifically mentioned that I had seen it more than once.  I still
do
>not know that I saw it in Rondale's and I have not once referred to
>Rondale's as the difinitive source for anything.  Only you have done that.
>Regardless, you continue to insist that I did.
>
>> I posted this to UNIQUELY identify the ONLY mag and ONLY time Lee
>> could have "read" it:
>
>So, now the truth, or at least your version of it comes out.  You found
that
>Rondale's had written that and you decided that because they had, that this
>must have been where I saw it, that it had not been published anywhere
else,
>ever, and that because you knew that it had only been published in one
>place, that meant that had stated that it was true because I saw it in
>Rondale's.  You've made some remarkably foolish assumptions and drawn a
>completely inaccurate conclusion which you, by virtue of your ego, now
claim
>to be conclusively proven.  What did you say your specialty was?  What
grade
>would you have assigned to someone who followed a similar path to a
>similarly erroneous conclusion?
>
>> > It's RODALE's, not Rondales.  MOLASSES Reef, not Molassas.
>
>Yep.  Two points for you.  You corrected my spelling.  I guess everyone has
>to be right about something sometime and so far, this is the best you've
>been able to do.
>
>> > Lee, since you can't remember ANY reference, and you're always too LAZY
>> > to look for it . . .
>
>No, just not interested.  My point was never the source, only the fact that
>some people think diving in South Florida is worth traveling to do.  That
>was the central point of the discussion and that is my statement.  You can
>mouth dance around the sides of the issue until the cows come home, but the
>fact is still the fact.
>
>You, on the other hand, declined to address the central issue, preferring
>your dance around everything else.  The only support you have provided on
>anything in this discussion is that Rondale's said the same thing I did.
>Thanks for supporting my position.  Now try supporting your own, or is it
>beneith you to be held to standards you demand for others.
>
>> > 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.  ;-)
>
>You are as full of stuff as the Christmas turkey.  You have absolutely no
>idea whatsoever what has been written in all the magazines, over all time.
>You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that I read it in Rondale's,
only
>that you did.  You don't even have evidence that I read it in a magazine.
>Magazines are not the only written material in existance.  You have proved
>nothing except that your ego is so large that you believe if you've only
>seem something in one place, then it's only appeared in one place and so
>large that you seem to be psychologically incapable of admitting you've
made
>a mistake.  I'll do it for you.  You're wrong.
>
>> Stop mouth-dancing about me putting words in your mouth!
>
>Then quit doing so.
>
>> To rebut, you can do ANY of the following:
>> (a)  Give the reference WHERE you read it.
>
>I've already said that I didn't know where I read it and admitted that it
>could have been Rondale's.  I have not stated that it was, but have stated
>that I have seen it more than once.
>
>> (b)  Show WHERE else you COULD have read it other than Rodale's.
>
>Rebuttal complete.  I could have read it in an e-mail posted in a
newsgroup,
>list or to me personally.  I also could have read it in publications
>occasionally put out by the national park service or any of the dive shops
>that line the northern Keys.  I could have read it on someone's website.
>How many could have's do you need?
>
>Now you explain to everyone how you know that no magazine has ever stated
>the Molasses is the most frequently visited dive site in the world.
>
>> (c)  SHOW the DATA.
>
>> Of course Lee had already acknowledged FAILURE to remember any of those.
>
>Right.  I admitted I didn't have the source data.  Since you have not
>admitted that you don't either, we're all waiting for you to share you
data,
>something you've always avoided doing and, I suspect, will avoid this time
>too.
>
>> In that post, I quoted a paragraph by Lee (which Viv quoted), before
>> making my comment.   Lee MISSED my quote of him, MIS-attributed
>> my quote predicting HIS behavior as (this is really getting silly)
>> attributing my own words to HIM!  Lee had the unadulterated
>> Chutzpah to post, Put up or shut up . . . if you can.
>
>Well, I guess we now know whether you can or not.  You neither put up nor
>shut up.  I'm going to go and look for your post, just to rub your nose in
>it.  I won't be surprised to find it missing, but I'll look anyway.  I
>posted your mis quote in my message.  You chose to leave it out of yours.
>Hell of a way to win a point.
>
>> Game of OVER, Lee.   You'll be mouth-dancing SOLO on this.
>
>Want to bet?
>
>Lee