In the Flamefest of March, there was an unprecedented 37 messages
in the thread "Recruit defined" that lasted from March 8 to 17,
and spilled over to at least a dozen OTHER threads, before,
during, and after that thread!


That was AFTER I had already posted

> Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:07:30 -0500
> Subject:   Pedantic and Pathetic Thread on Lee Bell's diversion and
>            lying tactics

  >Reef Fish wrote:
  >
  >> So here we have Lee with his private polls as he had with Jan, Ron
  >> Lee and others about people's private complaints about MY calling
  >> people names, in Scuba-L.

> Lee was the one who introduced the term "recruited" which was NOT
> in my statement he cited.  However, I saw no objection to his use
> of the term since it coincided with my understanding of the term
> "was recruited".



The only USA posters on the list who backed the FOREIGN use of
"recruited" to mean "successfully recruited" were three who have
been KNOWN to find any excuse to flame "Bob".  :-)


I finally saw an opportunity to ask a DISINTERESTED GROUP (of
both foreigners AND USA posters) in rec.scuba about the use of
the word "recruited", without giving any background of the
Scuba-SE Flamefest, and stated my quesiton in such a way that
the first responder (see below) even DELETED the keypoint of
my question! :-)

===============================================================
From: "Reef Fish (Large Nassau Grouper)" <[log in to unmask]>
Newsgroups: rec.scuba
Subject: Re: ATTENTION ALL DRUG ADDICTS AND DRUNKS---TEAM STROKE
WANTS YOU"...!!!!
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 18:46:02 -0400

Curtis wrote:
>
> Reef Fish (Large Nassau Grouper)  wrote
>
> > Was anyone in this group successfully recruited by Dan to the DIR camp?
> > (snip)
> > Pedantic mind wants to know.  :-)
>
>         Will a simple YES suffice?

Well, no.  Actually, my question was in the part you snipped!

> Is the word "successfully" in the question NECESSARY to convey
> "success" on Dan's part as a recruiter?

That's the "pedantic" part:  whether the word "recruited"
(in ordinary usage in the USA) implies "successfully recruited"?
It's a question in the use of the English language.  Sorry about
the unintended ambiguity.

If the answer to my snipped question is "yes", I might then ask
"how many in this ng were successfully recruited by Dan?" rathen
than "how many in this ng were recruited by Dan?"  I knwo it's
pedantry.  But I was emphatically told by at least one Floridian
that the word "successfully" is ALWAYS implied by the word
"recruited" while I always thought the contrary.

-- Bob.
===========================================================


Then came a reply, UNCHALLENGED by any USA poster OR any of
the many foreigners in rec.scuba, which I explained on 4/2/01:

-----------------------------------------------------------

NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Apr 2001 (06:46:42 GMT)  2 am EST, my
favorite pre-travel time.  :-)

HLAviation wrote:
>
> >That's the "pedantic" part:  whether the word "recruited"
> >(in ordinary usage in the USA) implies "successfully recruited"?
> >It's a question in the use of the English language.  Sorry about
> >the unintended ambiguity.
>
> No, I don't think that recruited presupposes success.  I have
> been recruited (someone comming trying to get me to accept a job)
> for many things and sometimes I turn them down.  That would be an
> unsuccessfull reruitment.  Those that I ended up working for were
> successful recruitments.  Recruiting is the act of trying, whether
> successful or not.

Thank you very much for stating the usage EXACTLY as I understand it
is used.  In a recent discussion in another scuba group, I had been
merciless flamed, by several foreigners, and especially one well-
known poster in rec.scuba, that to be recruited means "successfuly
recruited", in spite of many examples of actual usage I cited, from
webpages and examples of college students and faculty members being
recruited, and very few of those recruting efforts were successful.

I'll be on the road and inaccessible to this group for the next few
days, but when I return, I'll be happen to read comments from others,
if any.

-- Bob.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


I do not know HLAviation.  He is a long-time rec.scuba poster, NOT
in academia, but apparently in INDUSTRY (aviation).

His explanation about the usage of the term "recruited" in the USA
stood unchallenged since April 2.


We (the Scuba-SE posters on the whole) are now discussing SCUBA
and scuba-related topics again, as we SHOULD have been doing all
along.

This is NOT to invite another round of pointless flamewar on a
word that is irrelevant in the context of the March Flamefest IN
THE FIRST PLACE.

It only goes to show what "scuba discussants" can make seamounts
out of little gobi sand piles, all in the name of "discussion"!


My BOTTOM LINE:

English is a LIVING language.  In spite of PEDANTS citing dictionary
definitions (none addressed the IMPLICATION of "successfully"), the
ordinary USAGE of the word "recruited" (in the USA) is exactly as
explained by HLAviation (which I also explained, because I have seen
it used in HUNDREDS of different contexts personally, and I also
pointed to examples in HUNDREDS of webpages found by google.com on
merely the keywords "successfully recruited", implying DENYING the
alleged implication of "success").

Take it or leave it.  You get what you paid for.  :-)  Save your
"arguments" for you next dive trip, while you're underwater!  :-))

-- Bob.