On Tue, 3 Oct 2000 07:33:59 -0400, Lee Bell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Reef Fish wrote:
>
>Michael Levy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> >What is the point of bringing your Scuba-L argument directed at Nick
>> >in here when Nick is not present on this list?
>>
>> 1.  My ORIGINAL posting was not directed at Nick, but at those who were
>>     accusing me faking mail IN SCUBA-L.
>
>There not here either, at least they didn't post their perceived accusation
>here.

Wayne (who started it), Quinn who followed it (and anyone else I noticed)
are HERE, and subscribers to both lists.
>
>> 2.  I had requested EVERYONE to reply to me VIA EMAIL.  Scuba-SE was the
>>     2nd choice because I did NOT want . . . .
>
>Scuba-SE was a bad choice.  What you wanted or didn't want is not the
>standard by which courtesy is measured.

It's your opinion.  Scuba-SE was the only choice, given the joint
membership of the offenders in question.
>
>> Or better, just read your Scuba-SE from the webpage (as I do) and not
>> have to use any delete key at all if you're not interested!
>
>Or best of all, abide by the standards you set for others:
>6/27/2000 in regards to a cross post by sherry:
>
>"For example, Sherry cross-posted a reply to ME (in scuba-SE) to Scuba-L,
>which is none of THEIR business there -- they could read me in Scuba-SE. "

That's a VERY BAD example for you to use, Lee.  Sherry posted about
her reply to ME in Scuba-L when the reply had nothing to do with
Scuba-L.  I was also NOT a subscribers to Scuba-L then, so that it
would be a hardship for ME to follow any follow-up to my OWN posting,
not intended for any other list.

That's precisely the GENERALLY ACCEPTED REASON why cross-posting is
frowned upon.

>
>"Therefore, if a discussant has SOMETHING to discuss, START and end the
>thread WITHIN the SAME group."
>
>"It is generally frowned upon, even within rec.scuba SUBGROUPS, to cross
>post."

Thanks for citing me, though not entirely in the proper context.


>everybody knows that we all left and why.  What's the point in intrudnig
>where you said you would not,

You mis-represented me AGAIN.  I had already answered you.  Where is
you quote on my saying I left Scuba-L PERMANENTLY?  Can't you stop
long enough to READ a reply the first time without repeating the same
erroneous misrepresentation ad infinitum?

That was the FALSE premise of your entire posts.   Your points WOULD
have been valid if I had indeed said I had left Scuba-L permanently
OR if I had implied that "I would not intrude".  But your MEMORY
was wrong.

In fact, I had specifically said my departure from Scuba-L was TEMPORARY,
and that I WOULD re-sub and post whenever *I* saw fit.

Don't you want to have $1,000 to spend on SCUBA related activities?

defending yourself against perceived attacks
>that nobody else perceives the same way by people who dislike you and are
>disliked by you, to other people who dislike you and are disliked by you

You are speaking for OTHERS whom you don't know instead of speaking
for YOURSELF, aren't you?

>> You are wrong as usual.
>
>If Michael is wrong this time, you were wrong on 6/27/2000.  Which is it?
>
>Lee

Michael is wrong this time.  I was not wrong on 6/27/2000.

You are wrong this time AGAIN, for your mis-representation of what I
had said, and applied what I said in the improper context.

Read my EDITORIAL inspired by Viv's posting on this subject/thread.

Let's end this on our POINTS of DISAGREEMENT and agree to disagree.

I have nothing else to add and don't want to engage in what's deja
vu of your argumentative style without any new SUBSTANCE.

-- Bob.