On Thursday, October 05, 2000 6:14 AM, Reef Fish wrote

(snip)

> >                            NETIQUETTE
> >                  by the Rev. Bob "Bob" Crispen

> > Evangelism

> > Everyone is tempted from time to time to evangelize ...
(snip)
> > In the entire history of the net, no one has managed to do this
> > without looking like a complete idiot.

Well, there's a challenge!  :-)

What follows is a little introspective thought.  I find it easier to
crystalise my views by verbalising them (in this instance, writing them
down.).  It's a "done-to-death" topic but as the person who, in some
respects, indirectly caused the latest spat, I feel a certain
responsibility.

Unlike many of you, I have never logged off from Scuba-L.  Neither have I
posted as frequently as was, perhaps, the case in years gone by.  (In fact,
hardly at all until a recent discussion about 'ethics in diving'!)

In pointing up a seeming contradiction - to my way of thinking - in the
approach taken by the thread's originator, I was accused of being aggressive
and told by that person that they would no longer discuss matters with me.
An anonymous poster then chipped in with their opinion of something that I
had written earlier.

Amused by this concept of terminating a discussion on the grounds of 'tone',
I accused them of being an <obviously aggressive and argumentative sod>.
(Yes!  I received a 'strike')  :-)

They responded with > Now I understand why other people refuse to talk
> or discuss things with you.<

It was these comments made by a person who preferred anonymity that gave
rise to the suggestion that the poster was Bob.

I pointed out that Bob was far more logical in his thinking and arguments.
The rest that followed is now widely known.

My views on what a list owner may or may not do differs from those of many
on this list.  As far as I'm concerned a list owner has de facto rights to
do whatever s/he wants as far as the list is concerned.  I'm not compelled
to participate.  I do, however, believe in pointing out any apparent
absurdities or contradictions in behaviour.  As I did when Bob was
'banished' from Scuba-L for an 'apparent' breach of the guidelines.  (I say
'apparent' in apostrophes because I could see nothing untoward in his
comments, whereas other comments were being excused on the grounds that they
were not directed at a current list member!!!!!)

Now I come to the nub of what these ramblings are all about.  :-)

(I feel no qualms over posting messages from another list on Scuba-SE, as
Nick has already stated, today, in a response to another poster:

> However, the
> alternate list already exists, on scuba-se.<

I was not aware that Scuba-SE was the 'alternate' list to Scuba-L?  However
.....  )

Today Nick posted a response in Scuba-L to an earlier post of mine in which
I said:

> At 10:47 AM 10/3/2000 +1000, David Strike wrote:
> >> >His post may have implied contempt for those who chose to bandy his
name
> >> >around but I hardly feel that it was deserving of banishment from the
> >list
> >> >while remarks made by, say, Ron Lee appear to go unheeded.

Nick:
> >> Ron Lee made remarks about someone who is not, presently, a member of
the
> >> list.  The rule against appellations was never meant to apply to
> >> non-members, else one could not accurately describe equipment vendors
and
> >> dive operators.  However, the comments didn't go unnoticed.

Strike:
> >Leaving to one side the fact that I'm probably not alone in not knowing
who
> >is and who is not subscribed to Scuba-L, this seems to me to contradict
the
> >whole policy of an acceptable standard of debate!

Nick:
> You are right.  I'm modifying the written rules to clarify this, and they
> are posted under separate cover.  I still don't think that the intent is
to
> stifle people in discussing entities that are not and never have been on
> the list --- if someone runs into a bad dive operation, they should be
free
> to describe it.

Now if I understand things correctly, it's permissable to say something
like, "XYZ dive operator is a greedy, money grubbbing moron, whose safety
procedures are non-existent, whose rental equipment is faulty; whose boat
leaks and who should be avoided by every diver who doesn't want to wind up
as yet another diving fatality statistic." IF that dive operator is NOT
subscribed to Scuba-L?

On the other hand, that same operator can subscribe to Scuba-L and say, "
Come diving with us.  We don't worry about certification procedures here.
You can use, air, nitrox or trimix to any depth you like for as long as you
like.  Not only that, but we're cheaper than any other operator along the
coast.!" and anyone who calls them 'Clueless' can be suspended from further
contribution to any ensuing discussion?

I'm bemused!  I know just how Lewis Carroll's, Alice must have felt when she
stepped through the Looking Glass.

All that this succeeds in doing is to encourage still more of the 'private
postings'  - particularly those made by one or two non-divers with limited
knowledge of the activity - that only serve to stifle debate and the airing
of a variety of views and opinions.  The very thing, in fact, that caused
the Scuba-L spill.

Obviously I've been wrong all of these years, "Diving IS safe!  Diving IS
safe!  Diving Is ...."  I'm going to keep repeating that until I believe it!
:-)

Strike