I'm quite sorry to see that you're not the man I thought you were.  It's OK
for Bob to speak for you, but not for me to do so.  I expected more of you,
at least an impartial position on mistakes made by both sides.  It's really
to bad you felt the need to take sides.  I hope you're happy with your
choice.

David Strike wrote:

> It looks as though the "rainy day" that I was waiting for has just
arrived!  :-)

So, you've been waiting around for your chance at a shot.  Kind of sounds
like something you might have criticized me for, quite recently, in fact.
Seems like what you liked least was my waiting around for Bob to make a
mistake I could use against him is now what you claim to have been doing
yourself.  Kind of suggests that you don't hold yourself to the same
standards you hold others to either, doesn't it?  That's OK, I'm not real
good at it either, but we're both better than Bob.  Glad you got your
chance.  It's a shame you couldn't find something better.  You probably
could have if you'd tried a bit harder.

My post quoted below:

> >David Strike wrote:
> > Lots about lung capacity and tidal volume.

> >I hereby withdraw from this discussion until I can do some research.
> > Things I'm hearing from people I trust to get it right before saying it
appear to
> >be conflicting and counter intuitive.  Either I am misunderstanding,
> > someone is wrong, or both and there's little point in my continuing
until I have
> >better information to continue with.  I'll be back.

You now write:
> I'm still waiting.  Or are you now prepared to admit that in giving advice
> on free ascents you had absolutely no idea what you were talking about?
:-)

This isn't much of an example, Strike.  I said that "My primary problem with
Bob is his unwillingness to admit his own mistakes, his insistence in being
right even when he's wrong and his treatment of others in ways that he will
not accept from them."

1. There's no advice from me included in your quote.  If you want to
criticize my advice, you're going to have to include, or at least paraphrase
it.
2. Unless I've missed something, nowhere in your quote did I did claim to be
right, let alone claim to be right when I had been shown to be wrong.  I
didn't even claim to know what was right.  In fact, I specifically stated
that I was misunderstanding something, someone was wrong, or both and that I
was withdrawing from the conversation until I had something better to
continue based on.  When I could not decide what was right or wrong, I
withdrew until I knew better.  What would you have preferred, that I claim I
was wrong when I didn't know whether I was or not or that I claim to be
right, when I didn' tknow whether I was or not?  There are only three
choices, right, wrong and I don't know.  I chose I don't know.
3. Nowhere in what you quoted, did I insult anyone, call anyone a name or,
in any way treat anyone in a way I would not be happy to be treated myself.
If Bob had withdrawn from the EPIRB thread when it first became obvious he
did not have complete or correct information, there would have been no
futher criticism.  He couldn't do that.  I did just that.

No, I'm not prepared to admit that in giving advice on free ascents I had
absolutely no idea what I was talking about.  I don't even know what advice
you are referring to.  If you would like to share it, perhaps I would do as
you suggest.  At present, what I'm willing to do is exactly what I did in
the words you did quote, admit that I was getting conflicting information
from sources that should be reliable and that there was little point in my
continuing the discussion without better information.  I can still come up
with no better response under the circumstances.  I would be interested in
hearing your suggestions on how I could have responded better.

If your problem is that I didn't do the research and come back to the
discussion, then I accept it.  My interest does tend to move from item to
item and that which I don't research right away, sometimes goes without
research until the next time around.  I'm not perfect either.

There's a fair possibility that I've done some more research into the issues
you refer to but not returned to our discussion with my conclusions.  If
you'd like to refresh my memory or provide a date, thread and/or location of
the discussion, I'd be happy to take a look when I get a chance and let you
know if I did.  Who knows, you might be right.  I just might not have had an
idea what I was talking about . . . or might have had a better handle on it
than was clear at the time.

Your turn.  Was your post a poor attempt at a cheap shot or were you really
interested in what I might say on the subject . . . or has someone stooped
to a new low by pretending to be you?

Lee