Reef Fish wrote:

> >The Duane and Bibb (I don't think there's an s on Bibb,

>Lee, spelling correction WAS never the issue.  Only
> YOU made it one in order to gloss over your errors of SUBSTANCE.

You are correct.  Spelling was not the issue and not a subject I'm inclined
initiate as an issue.  I'm glad, however, to see that you consider making
spelling an issue as an attempt to gloss over errors of substance since it
was you, and not I, who first brought the subject up, or have you already
forgotten your comments regarding "Molassas and Rondale's."  How convenient
your memory seems to be.

> >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.

There's no argument, simply a statement.  You seemed to have missed my
comment that I too was surprised to see such things included in the category
"recreational."  Predictable.

> >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.

No I didn't.  You overlooked the fact that my statement contradicts yours.
The change was deliberate.  You said you have not found them shy and I said
you HAVE found them shy simply by virtue of the fact that you have been
informed of Good dives below 150 fsw that you did not find in whatever
publications you depend on for your information.

> 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!

Once again assigning your motives to others.  Predictable.

Lee