On Tuesday, March 06, 2001 3:02 AM, Lee Bell wrote:

(technical specification info snipped)
> Seems to me it's time for some input from a few others:

OK!  I'll throw some burley into the muddy waters!  :-)

> 1. Someone said I didn't know which unit the Aggressor had.  That person
> called me a liar for saying I did.

Lee!  Until now, did you know for certain what unit the Agressor fleet had?
Or, indeed, whether it was something that merely shared the same acronym as
Emergency Position Indicator Radio Beacon?

> 2. That same someone said that he would confirm, which unit the Aggressor
> fleet was using and report back.  I haven't seen a response so far.

I do think that it was Kelly who said that! :-)

> 3. Christian said that the unit broadcast over a long distance.  The same
> someone said it didn't.  I agreed with Christian.

Christain *assumed* - rightly as it now transpires - that it was, indeed, an
EPIRB.  You made the same assumption without - apparently - at the time
reading the original press release, (you did question whether I'd quoted an
extract correctly!), and on which Bob was basing his then views. (I have no
idea what his views now are on the subject  as the upshot of it all is that
a possible discussion about the merits or otherwise of divers carrying an
EPIRB, (Christian seemed to be opposed to their use by divers), has been
dismissed in favour of point scoring and a, "Yes you did!"  "No I didn't"
argument between Bob and yourself.  (One in which, it seems to me, neither
of you has covered yourself in much glory!) :-)

But as a piece of correct reasoning, Bob was right in what he originally
wrote and you were wrong - BASED ON THE ORIGINAL INFORMATION TO HAND!

> Someone who has consistently proven unwilling to admit his own mistakes
> resorting to misdirection and name calling when it looks like he's been
> caught in one, has done it again.  He's been accused of posting on what he
> does not know (which he claims he never does), posting without facts
(which
> he also claims he never does).

I claim that I'm never wrong - apart from the time when I thought that I was
and subsequently discovered that I wasn't!  Most of us have faults in our
debating style, our on-line personas, our mannerisms and our choice of
language that, in Bob's case, is often heavy handed and - to my way of
thinking - unnecessary.

>So far, he has, again, failed to admit his
> mistakes or apologize for calling others liars, idiots, mental midgets or
> swine simply for disagreeing with him when, in fact, he was wrong and they
> were right.

Aside from the name calling, that's something that applies to a lot of us -
including you, Lee!  (I could turn your disagreement with Bob around and
apply - minus the name calling - the same argument against you, for example!
But it would serve no useful purpose!!!!)

> That someone might find it good for his soul if he  would come clean, just
> as he expects others to when they are caught making similar mistakes.  I'm
> not holding my breath and, personally, don't care one way or the other.

You're doing a great job of hiding the fact! :-)

> My
> statements have been supported, with or without admission of error by
> others.

Privately or publicly?  The Scuba-L "underground" did a great job of
destroying that list by trying to change people's posting or debating
styles.  Just a few people claiming to speak for the 'silent majority'.
HAH!  If that's what you want then go for it!  I've had a bellyful of
bickering and nit-picking.

In May of this year, I'll have knocked up forty years of military,
commercial, scientific and recreational diving.  Although I may not now be
capable of doing - or have the desire to do - any of the sort of dives that
I once did, I still enjoy it and liked to think that I might have something
of value to share with others less fortunate(?) than myself.

That was obviously pomposity on my part.

Goodbye!  And don't forget to change your nappies from time to time.  :-)

Strike
(who's now going into lurker mode - unless I spot a deserving target!)