Cozumel port closed to scuba boats 12/14/03
Reef Fish
due to the pending Norte to arrive.
For those who are on the way to Coz, you may consider a change of
travel plans because the port may be closed for multiple days at this
time of the year.
Had two days of great weather and great diving before today.
Now I have to settle for watching on TV the news of Saddam's capture. ;(
-- Bob.
Jer
Still a good time to go find a cenote to dive.
--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur
Reef Fish
> Reef Fish wrote:
>
> > As of about 15 minutes ago, the port was closed to scuba dive boats
> > due to the pending Norte to arrive.
The breakers in front of the hotel are big enough for surfers. So, not
having heard the official word from the Port Captain yet, it appears a
sure thing the port will be closed to divers for another day.
>
> Still a good time to go find a cenote to dive.
Nah! Here are the top FIVE reasons:
5. Not DIR for Warm Water Wimps.
4. Not for NO (No Overhead) divers.
3. No coral reef or reef fish in cenotes.
2. No DEEP diving to 200 feet.
1. No Spotted Eagle Ray has ever been spotted in cenotes!
Looks like another day of watching Saddam on TV. ;-)
-- Bob.
Jer
>
> Looks like another day of watching Saddam on TV. ;-)
Bummer
HW "Skip" Weldon
Fish) wrote:
>The breakers in front of the hotel are big enough for surfers. So, not
>having heard the official word from the Port Captain yet, it appears a
>sure thing the port will be closed to divers for another day.
I take it you are in Coz. Since we will be coming soon, how long does
the typical norte last down there, and does it screw up the viz for a
few days thereafter?
On weather.com it looks like the norte is pushing through you today.
How are the bugs this week?
-HW "Skip" Weldon
Columbia, SC
Forest Aten
two). Mostly wind and some cold rain. It doesn't effect visibility unless
the clouds stay and you have less light in the water. The rain can last a
few days....but it usually clears when the storm pushes through. On rare
occasions, the Northers can back....giving you a few additional days of
rain.
Forest Aten
"HW "Skip" Weldon" <skip5700r...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7cjrtvod5c3jlr5jt...@4ax.com...
chilly
"Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8fb7380b.03121...@posting.google.com...
> >
(snip)> > Still a good time to go find a cenote to dive.
>
> Nah! Here are the top FIVE reasons:
>
> 5. Not DIR for Warm Water Wimps.
>
> 4. Not for NO (No Overhead) divers.
>
> 3. No coral reef or reef fish in cenotes.
>
> 2. No DEEP diving to 200 feet.
>
> 1. No Spotted Eagle Ray has ever been spotted in cenotes!
Last time I was there when the port was closed, and we enquired about cenote
diving, we were told that it was illegal for the dive ops to rent tanks in
conjunction with the closing.
HW "Skip" Weldon
wrote:
>> Nah! Here are the top FIVE reasons:
>Last time I was there when the port was closed, and we enquired about cenote
>diving, we were told that it was illegal for the dive ops to rent tanks in
>conjunction with the closing.
Norte is why God gave us all-inclusive drinks.
Reef Fish
> Fish) wrote:
>
>
>
> >The breakers in front of the hotel are big enough for surfers. So, not
> >having heard the official word from the Port Captain yet, it appears a
> >sure thing the port will be closed to divers for another day.
>
> I take it you are in Coz. Since we will be coming soon, how long does
> the typical norte last down there, and does it screw up the viz for a
> few days thereafter?
I am not sure what a "typical" Norte is, but I am sure THIS one was an
atypical Norte, because there was NO RAIN at all -- bright sunshine both
days -- only the winds were blowing.
>
> On weather.com it looks like the norte is pushing through you today.
The weather forecast was correct, for a change!
The port was closed this morning only to small crafts, and was open to
crafts 41 feet or longer. So, we were able to make our morning two-
tank dive at the usual time, but instead of starting at 10:00 from
the Aldora pier downtown (the Pro Dive pier has been out of operation
since before February) we started at 10:30 at the Caleta adjacent to
the Presidente hotel, and we were back to our downtown hotel shortly
after 2 pm.
I could see the winds calming down throughout those hours.
>
> How are the bugs this week?
None of the weather stuff ever disturb the bugs.
Because we were diving from a big, heavy boat that would have taken two
hours to go to one of the remote reefs such as Columbia, it was the
first time I dived Las Palmas (not far from the Presidente hotel, the
location of which is marked by a single PALM tree -- which used to
be DOS Palmas, and TRES Palmas more than a decade ago.
As such, it was a perfect opportunity for me to take a quick look at the
wall and I was surprised to find it dropping in ledges just like the
OUTER walls of Palancar! So, the channel between the island and the
land side of Palancar reef must be a VERY DEEP trough -- I'll have to
look at the depth chart when I get home to see how deep that channel
gets.
From a WALL DIVE point of view, it was a steep drop, just like most of
the Palancar sites, actually not much different from the Santa Rosa
Wall below 100 fsw. It drops in steps of small ledges -- every time
you come to another ledge thinking you'll see an abyss below, you see
ANOTHER ledge not far away. I got as far as only 225 fsw and estimate
the next ledge to be at about 250 fsw. :-)
As I said, you can't dive the cenotes to 200 feet. :-))
The 2nd dive was at the Paradise reef. The first coral head we saw on
descent there were 5 bugs (lobsters of various sizes; only one big
one though) waiting for us.
The wind has completely died down now and the sea is smooth once again.
I am looking forward to another good sunny day of diving tomorrow.
-- Bob.
Forest Aten
> So, the channel between the island and the
> land side of Palancar reef must be a VERY DEEP trough -- I'll have to
> look at the depth chart when I get home to see how deep that channel
> gets.
Approximately 2900 ft. at the deepest point. + or - a hundred
Reef Fish
It must be an incredibly steep trough between land and the sand flats
on Palancar. I don't recall the depth chart (in meters) hit 4 figures,
but I'll look again. That would explain the constant current through
the narrow deep channel then.
The eagle ray mating season is not here YET! Or if it is, there are
too busy mating up north to cruise the Eagle Ray Gulch south of the
San Juan reef where they are consistently seen during the December to
February season.
Our boat was the only one there besides Charroæ„€, and Charro was asking
our boat captain if we saw any eagle ray. No luck this time. The only
time of several I've dived there without seeing any eagle ray. So, we
did no better than we would at a cenote on this dive. :-)
The next dive was a brisk drift at San Juan. Besides a couple of
supermale and midnight parrotfishes, the only critter of any size were
two large (2+ feet) Hawksbill and one VERY large green turtle.
It appears we may have escaped ANOTHER Norte that went swiftly through
last night. The wind and the pounding surf were so strong that they
woke me up around 1 am this morning. But now it has calmed downed
almost completely. Of the three weather forecast webs I checked, only
one of them was still forecasting high winds today.
I'll know soon, which way the wind blows.
-- Bob.
Reef Fish
>
>
> The eagle ray mating season is not here YET! Or if it is, there are
> too busy mating up north to cruise the Eagle Ray Gulch south of the
> San Juan reef where they are consistently seen during the December to
> February season.
Correction! They are here already. Albert (PRIMA) had seen 16 of them
as early as the end of last month. They must've been too busy mating
while we dived the site yesterday. According to Al, the best time to
see them in formation is around the New Year.
> It appears we may have escaped ANOTHER Norte that went swiftly through
> last night.
>
> I'll know soon, which way the wind blows.
Correction 2!
The winds picked up, and the port was closed to ALL scuba boats, large
and small by 8:45 am this morning. Still no rain. The wind didn't
keep any of the SEVEN cruiseships from stopping in Coz today. EIGHT
are expected tomorrow.
-- Bob.
rwjg40
> It must be an incredibly steep trough between land and the sand flats
> on Palancar. I don't recall the depth chart (in meters) hit 4 figures,
> but I'll look again. That would explain the constant current through
> the narrow deep channel then.
When you say "land" are you talking about the mainland (Yucatan) side or
the island (Cozumel) side of Palancar? Is there a channel between
Palancar and Cozumel? When Forest answered "2900 ft", he surely was
talking about the water depth between Palancar and the Yucatan, wouldn't
you think?
Gordon in Austin
Jack Sloan
"Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8fb7380b.03121...@posting.google.com...
Bob, the port was closed to boats under 40 feet on Sunday. Some of us went
out and had a great couple of dives. Getting back in the boat was a bit of a
challenge though. Very rough.We also had a very different dive from most
days because we didn't go too far from the Caletta.We did the dunes behind
Yukob in the morning and Dzul ha reef after lunch. Both shallow dives @ 40'
and plenty of small things sometimes seen more by snorkelers...but diving
none-the-less. The Careyitos is actually a smidge less than 40', but we
pulled on the bow to stretch it out.<G>
Jack
Jack Sloan
"Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> The winds picked up, and the port was closed to ALL scuba boats, large
> and small by 8:45 am this morning. Still no rain. The wind didn't
> keep any of the SEVEN cruiseships from stopping in Coz today. EIGHT
> are expected tomorrow.
>
> -- Bob.
Possible correction#3
Bob, it rained pretty hard between 11 and 2 last night. I had to close the
door at 11 to keep from flooding the room. Dzul Ha is a ways from the
Bahia, but there was standing water downtown this morning as we made our way
to the airport. Perhaps the Bahia has rain protection insurance??
Jack
Reef Fish
> Reef Fish wrote:
>
> > It must be an incredibly steep trough between land and the sand flats
> > on Palancar. I don't recall the depth chart (in meters) hit 4 figures,
> > but I'll look again. That would explain the constant current through
> > the narrow deep channel then.
>
> When you say "land" are you talking about the mainland (Yucatan) side or
> the island (Cozumel) side of Palancar?
The "land" was definitely the land on the "island" of Cozumel, because
the dive site in question, Las Palmas, was a wall from the island
(Cozumel) side of Palancar.
> Is there a channel between Palancar and Cozumel?
Absolutely! That's one I was talking about.
> When Forest answered "2900 ft", he surely was talking about the water
> depth between Palancar and the Yucatan, wouldn't you think?
>
> Gordon in Austin
You're probably right, but I thought he was familiar enough with the
sites in Cozumel to know where Las Palmas was relative to the sand flats
of Palancar, and the OTHER side of Palancar which are the walls facing
the mainland of Yucatan.
-- Bob.
Forest Aten
Several years ago, the Global Challenger pulled 6 cables from the mainland
to Cozumel. These cables now provide power from the mainland, with fiber
embedded. You may have noticed that the old city power plant isn't blowing
night and day now.
The engineers on site (at the time) told me that they found a ridge at 1500
that they laid most of the cable on. The 2900+ feet depth is the maximum
depth found in the channel. Most of the channel is 1500 ft or deeper.
The steepest gradient (sustained) is off of the western shoreline of Cozumel
and is located between Cedral Wall and Santa Rosa Wall.
Forest
"Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8fb7380b.03121...@posting.google.com...
Forest Aten
Bob,
Yes I know Cozumel. I've run a trip into Cozumel about once a month since
1982. It's a quick easy hope from Dallas.
I must not have read clearly which "channel" you were talking about.
The area around what you call Las Palmas has several (what I call) grooves
and ridges (not classic spur and groove systems) that run parallel to the
island. These have confused more than a few divers over the years. Same kind
of "grooves and ridges" that sit inside of Cedral wall. If people get a bad
drop and follow the wrong ridge....they can easily miss Cedral reef. It's
not as critical at Las Palmas. No real 'channel' exists. It's reasonable
shallow from the island of Cozumel to the reef crest at Palancar reef. Maybe
70 ft at most and most places far less. As you know, the reef crest in some
areas of Palacar is as shallow as 20-30 feet....dropping quickly on the
Yucatan side.
Have you been to the Museo de Cozumel in recent years? They have a very nice
topo map of the island, with all reefs clearly marked with lights. You can
push a button and the named reef is illuminated. The topography is accurate
on this exhibit. It gives you a great visual on which parts of the reef
around Cozumel have the steepest walls. I haven't been through in a year or
so but the entry fee is only a couple of bucks. Well worth it.
Forest
"Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8fb7380b.03121...@posting.google.com...
HW "Skip" Weldon
wrote:
>Bob, the port was closed to boats under 40 feet on Sunday. Some of us went
>out and had a great couple of dives. Getting back in the boat was a bit of a
>challenge though. Very rough.
On my weather sites it looks wet through next week. What is the water
temp now?
Thanks.
Reef Fish
> hahahaha
>
Whenever you start with that, it can only mean that you ERRED.
> Bob,
>
> Yes I know Cozumel. I've run a trip into Cozumel about once a month since
> 1982.
Do you DIVE on those trips you bring your clients or do you just drink?
> It's a quick easy hope from Dallas.
An easier HOPE than from Juneau, Alaska I am sure. ;-)
> I must not have read clearly which "channel" you were talking about.
That's what Gordon finally tipped me off -- I couldn't imagine anyone
who said they've been in Coz often could soooooooo far off regarding
where Las Palmas's relative location to Palancar and the mainland
channel.
> The area around what you call Las Palmas has several (what I call) grooves
> and ridges (not classic spur and groove systems) that run parallel to the
> island. These have confused more than a few divers over the years.
They confused YOU for sure! For one thing, I said I dived down the STEEP
wall of Las Palmas to (only) 225 fsw, and estimate the next ledge to be
about 250 fsw.
That's hardly anything you or anyone would call a "groove" or "ridge".
> Same kind
> of "grooves and ridges" that sit inside of Cedral wall. If people get a bad
> drop and follow the wrong ridge....they can easily miss Cedral reef.
Is that what happened to you? :-)
Dived through those kind of grooves and ridges many many times, crossing
over from several of the shallow sites to the wall.
> It's
> not as critical at Las Palmas. No real 'channel' exists. It's reasonable
> shallow from the island of Cozumel to the reef crest at Palancar reef. Maybe
> 70 ft at most and most places far less. As you know, the reef crest in some
> areas of Palacar is as shallow as 20-30 feet....dropping quickly on the
> Yucatan side.
You're just whistling Dixie now, Dallas Cowboy! Re-read my original post
about the Las Palmas WALL. Review the part where I said I dropped down,
ledge after ledge, to 225 fsw.
The point of my post was MY SURPRISE, having dived Las Palmas numerous
times (as a 2nd dive, which I seldom go below 80 or 90 fsw), that on
that particular 1st dive, I saw that the wall was steep, and DEEP, and
wondered HOW DEEP it went.
That was when you chimed in with your 2,900 feet.
> hahahaha
Why don't you just admit that you ERRED and read the wrong chart.
> hahahaha
> hahahaha
> Have you been to the Museo de Cozumel in recent years? They have a very nice
> topo map of the island, with all reefs clearly marked with lights.
No need. I have the Cozumel Reefs map, with annotation by Paul Padilla.
It has the depths of the waters around Cozumel very well charted, and the
locations of the reefs correctly and well marked.
> Forest
Have you EVER dived the Las Palmas wall? > hahahaha
What's the DEEPEST you ever dived there? > hahahaha
-- Bob.
Reef Fish
> Bob,
>
> Several years ago, the Global Challenger pulled 6 cables from the mainland
> to Cozumel.
Forest, you were barking at the wrong channel! Not the one off Las
Palmas I was talking about in my post. It's not a groove nor a ridge,
and is FAR from Palancar and the main channel to Yucatan.
> The steepest gradient (sustained) is off of the western shoreline of Cozumel
> and is located between Cedral Wall and Santa Rosa Wall.
>
> Forest
The Cedral Wall is the site I did my deepest dive in Coz, which was
described in a post in the archives. Dived to 200 fsw on the Santa Rosa
Wall and other sites on Palancar numerous times.
That's WHY I was surprised, that the wall on Las Palmas, right off the
ISLAND of Cozumel, on the Cozumel-island side of Palancar, was very
much like the "steps" of ridges on the Santa Rosa Wall, down to 225 fsw.
-- Bob.
Reef Fish
> "Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8fb7380b.0312...@posting.google.com...
>
> > The winds picked up, and the port was closed to ALL scuba boats, large
> > and small by 8:45 am this morning. Still no rain. The wind didn't
> > keep any of the SEVEN cruiseships from stopping in Coz today. EIGHT
> > are expected tomorrow.
> >
> > -- Bob.
> Possible correction#3
Possible, but I have not seen any sign of it downtown.
> Bob, it rained pretty hard between 11 and 2 last night. I had to close the
> door at 11 to keep from flooding the room. Dzul Ha is a ways from the
> Bahia, but there was standing water downtown this morning as we made our way
> to the airport. Perhaps the Bahia has rain protection insurance??
> Jack
Yeah, the entire Centro area has! As you know, in Coz you could have a
heavy rain storm at your favorite watering hole (no matter where) and have
bright sunshine and no rain 100 feet away. As for the flooding of the
streets, it doesn't take but a few minutes of heavy rain to flood several
of the Calles and Avenides in the downtown area. There wasn't even
any sign of "wetness" here. :-)
The port remained closed today. Bummer! Four days in a row to small
crafts and two in a row for big crafts. The sun has been shining bright
ever since I got up this morning, and sunshine has been forecast for the
entire week. :-)
That's TROPICAL weather.
-- Bob.
Reef Fish
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:52:21 -0600, "Jack Sloan" <jqs...@hal-pc.org>
> wrote:
>
>
> >Bob, the port was closed to boats under 40 feet on Sunday. Some of us went
> >out and had a great couple of dives. Getting back in the boat was a bit of a
> >challenge though. Very rough.
It was closed to boats under 41 feet Sunday and Monday, and to all dive
boats yesterday and today. I did dive on Monday and Tuesday.
>
> On my weather sites it looks wet through next week. What is the water
> temp now?
I checked on three forecasts two days ago. They were:
http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/76649.html
http://www.accuweather.com/adcbin/public/intlocal_index.asp?
wxcity2=Cozumel&wxcountry=NA;MX&partner=altavista
http://weather.yahoo.com/forecast/MXQR0074.html
They all are forecasting SUUNY weather the rest of the week.
It's bright and sunny outside now, though the port is closed.
I haven't seen a drop of rain since I came a week ago. :-)
The water temp (when I dived) was mostly 79 F on the ReefNet recorder;
mostly 81F and 82F on our HyperAqualand recorders. Take your pick. :-)
Neither weather forecast nor water-temp gauges are based on exact science.
When are you coming?
-- Bob.
goose
> our boat captain if we saw any eagle ray. No luck this time. The only
> time of several I've dived there without seeing any eagle ray. So, we
> did no better than we would at a cenote on this dive. :-)
>
friendly just made one pass. Second dive groups of 2 to 4 rays which
were friendly.
Forest Aten
I guess you have a little left over animosity over your Tobago trip. Let it
go Bob....people are loving the place. :-) It wasn't good for you....and
that's unfortunate. The experienced divers I've sent have rave reviews about
the quality of the reef and the diving....despite average visibility. Oh go
ahead and say it Bob. They just don't know what they are talking about. Only
Bob the ReefFish knows....
You referred to "channel" in your first post....so my first post discussed
"THE" channel between the mainland and Cozumel.
So your your next post went to (paraphrase) "no, I meant the channel between
the Las Palmas and Palancar". Not a channel there....but I then addressed
that part of Cozumel's underwater topography. Basicly sand and hard pan no
deeper than 70 feet. In many places the sand or pan runs out to an interior
parallel (to the island) reef system....with another run of sand out to the
outer reef crest....and then the "wall". Some places along the island don't
have the interior reef. See the nice interactive web site below for a simple
and pretty good description of the general nature of the reef topography.
Now in your latest smart ass post, you talk about the "wall" at Las Palmas.
What exactly do you need to know? A "wall" on the outer reef crest??....this
would be the Cozumel side of the channel between the island and the
mainland. That's the 2900 ft deep channel, Bob. It drops off in terraces.
And...why did you ask about this in the first place, if you have the
"special" reef map drawn by THE (your) "expert"??? Didn't you refer to your
"special" map before you ask the question?
Wow...you are all over the place and a little moody.
You ask about whether my groups dive or drink??? hahahaha They dive a lot
Bob and then they have a few drinks with dinner. Most don't do your hammock
scene. Maybe some dancing and a nice walk home along the seawall.
I have to smile a lot every time you get excited.
http://www.cozumeldiveguide.com/ push on the picture of the island on the
right side. Call Las Palmas reef what ever you like. It has only had a few
dozen aliases since I've been diving Cozumel. And the site you described is
miles from Palancar??? What's the point Bob? I still have no idea what
"channel" you are asking about.
;-)
Forest Aten
P.S. Bob...I don't get lost diving Cozumel. I call the reefs, give the
briefings and make the drops. Sorry you are still angry.
Forest Aten
The "channel" between Palancar and the island is fairly shallow.
Forest
"Forest Aten" <fores...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jJbEb.76018$8y1.281369@attbi_s52...
Reef Fish
A group of eight wasn't bad at all. I guess that was just our unlucky
day. We were at the same cite, and my wife and I were diving EAN36 and
was able to stay at the 80 fsw level for about 45 minutes before we
gave up, after the air divers went up 10 minutes earlier.
If we don't catch them on this trip, we'll see them next year around
Mardi Gras (Carnivale in February) I am pretty sure.
-- Bob.
Ron Lee
we left before the port was closed.
It was not that bad.
Ron Lee
Reef Fish
> > So, the channel between the island and the
> > land side of Palancar reef must be a VERY DEEP trough -- I'll have to
> > look at the depth chart when I get home to see how deep that channel
> > gets.
> > -- Bob.
I had also written,
> > From a WALL DIVE point of view, it was a steep drop, just like most of
> > the Palancar sites, actually not much different from the Santa Rosa
> > Wall below 100 fsw. It drops in steps of small ledges -- every time
> > you come to another ledge thinking you'll see an abyss below, you see
> > ANOTHER ledge not far away. I got as far as only 225 fsw and estimate
> > the next ledge to be at about 250 fsw. :-)
> Approximately 2900 ft. at the deepest point. + or - a hundred
I'm still not home yet, to be able to consult the Cozumel depth chart.
But I now have a first-hand account from someone who actually DIVED to
the bottom of the Las Palmas Wall. :-)) It was about 400 fsw.
So, I was more than halfway there. I'll check on the 400 fsw figure.
It can't be very far off the mark.
Port was open to all crafts today, but the sea was still quite choppy.
Bright and sunny again. Dived the Santa Rosa Wall to 200 fsw. Have
no idea how deep THAT wall is, but I suspect it's at least 4 figures
in fsw.
-- Bob.
Reef Fish
> I dove Columbia and Las Palmas Sunday in a boat smaller than 40', but
> we left before the port was closed.
>
> It was not that bad.
Diving in the 5 days since was not that good either.
The Norte wind has been blowing ever since. Yesterday, even when the
port was OPEN to all crafts, the waves prevented nearly all of the
dive boats to pick up passengers at the downtown (Aldora) pier.
I think the port was closed to small crafts (less than 41 feet) 4 of
the past 6 days. The winds are still blowing strong this morning.
It's been a good week for those who come to get warm weather and a
TAN (but don't dive :-)) because the SUN was bright and hot everyday,
and I still haven't seen a drop of rain in the past NINE days.
-- Bob.
Ron Lee
>It's been a good week for those who come to get warm weather and a
>TAN (but don't dive :-)) because the SUN was bright and hot everyday,
>and I still haven't seen a drop of rain in the past NINE days.
>
>-- Bob.
Think Bob, I was at the minigolf Tuesday night (16 Dec) and got
soaked in a shower that lasted perhaps 15 minutes. Were you inside?
I had a feeling that you were around while I was walking the square.
I should have acted on the hunch and stopped by the Bahia.
Ron Lee
Reef Fish
> Bob,
>
> I guess you have a little left over animosity over your Tobago trip.
Perhaps. But it's not animosity at all. It merely established your
LACK of CREDIBILITY in your posts.
It is well-known (over the years in this and other newsgroups) that I
judge the merit (or lack thereof) of any post by the SUBSTANCE of what's
posted in THAT post. Your posts about Tobagos and your other posts about
Las Palmas was no exception. Nor is THIS one. You were busy shooting
your own foot!
> I've sent have rave reviews about
> the quality of the reef and the diving....despite average visibility.
> Oh go ahead and say it Bob. They just don't know what they are talking
> about. Only Bob the ReefFish knows....
The paragraph above is entirely gratuitous, and has absolutely NOTIHNG
to do with your LACK of knowledge about the Las Palmas site and the
Las Palmas WALL, in particular.
> You referred to "channel" in your first post....so my first post discussed
> "THE" channel between the mainland and Cozumel.
No point in repeating your FALSE ALIBI. It was clear I wasn't talking
about the MAIN channel. Nor was a wall that went down to beyond 250 fsw
a "groove" like those near the Cedral Wall as you mistakenly claimed.
I now have someone who DIVED to the bottom of the Las Palmas wall, and
said it was 400 feet!
> Now in your latest smart ass post, you talk about the "wall" at Las Palmas.
Anyone who has dived much in Cozumel KNOWS the site thatæ„€ called Las Palmas.
Everyone who has dived there KNOWS that most of the dives there are done
on the 50-60 ft ledge of that wall.
Everyone knows there is a site call Las Palmas and a WALL there, except
Forest Aten. :-)
Not many people know that the Las Palmas Wall goes down to 400 feet! I
was surprised, because of its location, that it went as deep as 250 feet
and beyond.
You made a BLUNDER saying that wall goes down to 2900 feet and has been
back-peddling and mouth-dancing about it ever since.
> Wow...you are all over the place and a little moody.
And you were mouthing your IGNORANCE and goes hahahaha and expect me
not to correct your blunders?
> You ask about whether my groups dive or drink??? hahahaha
If you are going to comment on anything I said, try to CITE the exact
quote, as I do yours. I was making a sarcastic remark about YOU and
YOU only, because for your bragging about your frequent trips to
Cozumel (only because you formerly owned the "Sports Page" drinking
joint and restaurant):
FA> Yes I know Cozumel. I've run a trip into Cozumel about once a month
FA> since 1982.
RF> Do you DIVE on those trips you bring your clients or do you just drink?
> I have to smile a lot every time you get excited.
I smile a lot every time I see you shoot your own foot, and digs a hole
deeper and deeper for yourself! :-)))) Keep digging, and soon you can
call those deep holes your "grooves". ;-(
> Call Las Palmas reef what ever you like.
So you don't even KNOW where Las Palmas is! >hahahaha
> It has only had a few
> dozen aliases since I've been diving Cozumel.
Why don't you just name ONE DOZEN of those dozens of alias, and let's
ALL have a good laugh on it.
> I still have no idea what "channel" you are asking about.
But you DO know the meaning of the BOTTOM of a WALL don't you?
>
> ;-)
>
> Forest Aten
>
> P.S. Bob...I don't get lost diving Cozumel. I call the reefs, give the
> briefings and make the drops. Sorry you are still angry.
No wonder you have DOZENS of alias for the little stretch near Las Palmas.
You made them up (as in "call the reefs") and your clueless clients would
think they were diving DOZENS of different reefs when they were diving
the same one.
Is that what you are confessing now? >hahahaha
Go back to your cheap drinking joint and drink yourself to stupor and
THEN you'll have all the hahahaha to entertain YOURSELF. <;-/
-- Bob.
Forest Aten
You make me smile.
Let me cite you "exactly".....
"(only because you formerly owned the "Sports Page" drinking joint and
restaurant):"
Just another of your (not so small) mistakes. I have never owned anything on
the island of Cozumel. hahahahaha
Well...I did sort of own a nice Penn boat rod and reel that I left at my
dive operators house. I guess that might count. You must be confusing me
with someone else. I wonder where you got that info???? No matter, it's very
incorrect. That's a pretty wild claim Bob....you might want to do a little
more research before you make mistakes like that one. Did you get that info
from the same guy who said he went to "400 ft" at Las Palmas. ;-) The place
(Sports Page) was such a dump that I never recommended it to anyone
traveling with our groups. As I remember it...people used to go over there
for a hamburger if they didn't like the local food.
How about this cite:
"I now have someone who DIVED to the bottom of the Las Palmas wall, and said
it was 400 feet!"
On air, right Bob. :-) I love the "I now have someone who" part.....
How long were they there? Did he have the time to travel into the blue and
find the next drop off? Just another ledge Bob? Perhaps a few hundred feet
out....maybe 100 feet .... or 300 feet away......send in the submarines.
hahahaha
I'm sure the bathometry is available. It's a very easy thing to find. I'm
not going to worry about it. If you really want to know about the ledges
along that part of the island (and the main channel)....go buy it.
Wow...you are such an angry guy. Keep those CAPS coming. hahahaha
Have a great holiday.
Forest
P.S. I wouldn't waste my time on Las Palmas Wall......I have clients on
boats that want a better effort than that. Sorry Bob. Kinda of pushing it to
get it in on a 5 or 6 day trip. Way to many good sites to do without doing
Las Palmas. (I have heard recently that you can find a type of banded pipe
fish along Las Palmas wall.)
Reef Fish
> How about this cite:
>
> "I now have someone who DIVED to the bottom of the Las Palmas wall, and said
> it was 400 feet!"
>
> On air, right Bob. :-) I love the "I now have someone who" part.....
> How long were they there? Did he have the time to travel into the blue and
> find the next drop off? Just another ledge Bob? Perhaps a few hundred feet
> out....maybe 100 feet .... or 300 feet away......send in the submarines.
> hahahaha
Forest, you´re quickly establishing yourself as a "Cozumel IDIOT"!
I have dived with one person who had done air dives to 400 feet more
times than the total number of brain cells you have. He wasn't the one.
I have also dived with many folks who had dived trimix to depths in
excess of 400 feet. He was one of these.
But NONE of these folks was ever, under any circumstances, as STUPID
and make STUPID, unfounded statements, as one Forest Aten who has
recently discovered the internet newsgroups, but haven't yet found
anything of substance to go with his posts yet.
THAT pretty much sums you up, Forest!
> I'm sure the bathometry is available. It's a very easy thing to find. I'm
> not going to worry about it. If you really want to know about the ledges
> along that part of the island (and the main channel)....go buy it.
Keep blabbering, Cozumel IDIOT, Forest.
>
> Wow...you are such an angry guy. Keep those CAPS coming. hahahaha
So THAT's why you were making all those nonsensical comments about an
"angry guy". Don't you mean you think I was SHOUTING, as numerous
clueless newbies had done years ago and have stopped that tune?
It's my STYLE of using caps as italics for emphasis, to catch the
attention of readers like yourself who have severe cases of ADS.
Check out the writings of Pulitzer-winning humorist Dave Barry or the
Washington Post Syndicated columnist James F. Kilpatrick, who wrote
weekly columns teaching fools like you how to write ENGLISH properly --
and see how often they use caps for emphasis, even when italics are
available for their columns.
Why don't you learn how to use the newsgroups archives in Google, in
order you can read my PAST POSTS so that you won't be making the same
mistakes many other fools have made before you -- for the SAME reason
-- when substance failed in their posts.
Soon you may even start correcting my typos and grammatical errors! ;-)
>
> Have a great holiday.
Thank you. I always do. Get a life, Forest. You severely lack one!
>
> Forest
>
> P.S. I wouldn't waste my time on Las Palmas Wall......I have clients on
> boats that want a better effort than that.
I know. That's why you made up DOZENS of aliases for Las Palmas, as you
claim it has. Right? "I dived the Great Groove with my travel agent
Forest Aten -- he said that wall dropped to 2900 feet. Wow!!"
> Way to many good sites to do without doing Las Palmas.
Another silly and ignorant EXCUSE for your own IGNORANCE.
>(I have heard recently that you can find a type of banded pipe
> fish along Las Palmas wall.)
Why don't you cite ONE source for your delusional misidentification
and misattribution!
I have POSTED articles in rec.scuba.* about seahorses I've seen and
photo'd on the Las Palmas site. But you would have learn how to use
the archives to find those articles. Tsk, tsk.
Have YOU ever seen any seahorse in Cozumel (of size 6" or greater)?
In yellow, red, or brown ... ALL on the Las Palmas site (or elsewhere
in Cozumel)?
Forest Aten> Way to many good sites to do without doing Las Palmas.
That's only ONE of the reasons why you are a Cozumel IDIOT! :-)))
-- Bob.
Reef Fish
> Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com (Reef Fish) wrote:
>
> >It's been a good week for those who come to get warm weather and a
> >TAN (but don't dive :-)) because the SUN was bright and hot everyday,
> >and I still haven't seen a drop of rain in the past NINE days.
> >
> >-- Bob.
>
> Think Bob, I was at the minigolf Tuesday night (16 Dec) and got
> soaked in a shower that lasted perhaps 15 minutes. Were you inside?
See my reply to Jack Sloan about severely isolated local showers.
In your case, it was god's punishment for someone who comes to Cozumel
to play minigolf, or maxi golf, for that matter!
-- Bob.
Forest Aten
You're not only an angry guy....but rude. :-)
I loved those references to people who use all CAPS. Who would have known???
I TOo could HAvE been using CAPS like yOU to make MY poinT.
Keep the hammock swingin' and work on that smile.
Forest Aten
"Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8fb7380b.03122...@posting.google.com...
Reef Fish
> Bob,
>
> You're not only an angry guy....but rude. :-)
Forest, you slipped. You forgot to say "hahahaha"! :-?
Rude? Are you THAT limited in your vocabulary? <:-)
Do you know what 'quid pro quo' mean?
>
> I loved those references to people who use all CAPS. Who would have known???
> I TOo could HAvE been using CAPS like yOU to make MY poinT.
>
> Keep the hammock swingin' and work on that smile.
>
> Forest Aten
Vacuous in substance, as usual. At least it's short this time.
-- Bob.
H. Huntzinger
>
> I'm still not home yet, to be able to consult the Cozumel depth chart.
Whenever you find this, I'd be curious to see it...
And hopefully we can get a photocopy of the map digitized of the general
Cozumel region's overall depths for everyone to take a look at.
I now have "so-so quality" hardcopies of a depth sounding chart for
Cayman Brac and Little Cayman, which were given recently to me by a dive
buddy.
They are just a bit too large for my scanner, but I have scanned the
western half of the Brac map, just to have a go at it. But they're
still interesting...here's a URL link:
http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2003/brac/cayman_brac_depths.jpg
BTW, note that the listed depth soundings are in meters.
BTW, for the ~5 mile channel between Cayman Brac & Little Cayman, the
short answer is that the deeper spots are "only" around 700m deep.
-hh
Reef Fish
> Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com (Reef Fish) wrote:
> >
> > I'm still not home yet, to be able to consult the Cozumel depth chart.
That was relative to the depth of the BOTTOM of the Las Palmas WALL.
Forest Aten has made at least a dozen posts defending and compounding
his silly ERROR, not only because he didn't know where the Las Palmas
Reef was, he had no idea of the depth of the bottom of that wall.
See my LATEST reply to him in a subject he addressed directly to
"Bob".
>
>
> Whenever you find this, I'd be curious to see it...
If I have the time and inclination to digitize some pic and put it on
a
website, it would be one of those HUNDREDS of pix I have on sharks,
mantas, and other creatures in French Polynesia, or else in the world
for that matter (which I have NOT done but one small set of several
and
I have since forgotten where it is <G>).
The chart in question is a widely referred to, and very popular and
INFORMATIVE map, titled "The REEFS of COZUMEL ISLAND", sold in many
stores in Cozumel over the past decade.
I gave out AT LEAST 10 autographed copies of that map to members of
the
Coz99NEDfest who won the drawing in the farewell party. Those maps
were
individually autographed by Paul Padilla himself, with whom I have had
many
dives in Cozumel. He wrote the annotation and description of each of
the Reefs on the map.
Isn't it interesting that FOrest Aten, the self-proclaimed expert
about
everything in Cozumel does not know the CONTENT of that map/chart, and
unaware of the DEPTHS in that chart, and didn't even know where Las
Palmas Reef IS, which is CLEARLY marked on that map, relative to all
the other
well-known dive sites of Cozumel!
> And hopefully we can get a photocopy of the map digitized of the general
> Cozumel region's overall depths for everyone to take a look at.
I wouldn't waste my time on that for the simple reason that it suffers
the SAME lack of detail as what you digitized to show some of the
depths
around Cayman Brac and little Cayman.
For example, in Little Cayman, you would NOT be able to tell the
depths
of the BOTTOMS of any of the Bloody Bay WALLS, because the scattered
depths (soundings) shown are NOT related to the WALLS themselves, but
merely certain selected locations off the island.
If you're interested, I am sure you can find that map from one of the
Coz99NEDfesters whom you know, and digitize and do the same as those
(less detailed) charts of the Cayman Islands.
>
>
> I now have "so-so quality" hardcopies of a depth sounding chart for
> Cayman Brac and Little Cayman, which were given recently to me by a dive
> buddy.
>
> They are just a bit too large for my scanner,
The same is true of the Cozumel Reef Map (20" x 30").
> but I have scanned the
> western half of the Brac map, just to have a go at it. But they're
> still interesting...here's a URL link:
>
>
> http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2003/brac/cayman_brac_depths.jpg
>
>
> BTW, note that the listed depth soundings are in meters.
So are those in the Cozumel Reef Map.
I can describe the NEAREST soundings to the Las Palmas Reef and WALL
on
that chart.
It showed what appeared to be the LEDGE area of Las Palmas Reef,
between
Paraiso Reef and Chankanaab Reef. The readings are (in meters):
11, 14, 21, 19, and 30.
For those who have dived Las Palmas, those are the familiar depths,
whether the dive was FIRST or (the more shallow) SECOND.
The NEAREST three depth-soundings parallel to the depths on the ledge
shown above are 201 (meters) off the Paraiso Reef, 190 m south of Las
Palmas, and 177m just south of Chankanaab.
Thus, the 400 feet depth at the BOTTOM of the Las Palmas Wall is
perfectly consistent with those depths in the chart in question.
Further MOUTH DANCE by Forest Aten on this subject will be categorized
here and how as his mouth dance -- no more, no less.
RTFM applies here, save for a different M from the usual M.
-- Bob.
Forest Aten
> INFORMATIVE map, titled "The REEFS of COZUMEL ISLAND", sold in many
> stores in Cozumel over the past decade.
>
> I gave out AT LEAST 10 autographed copies of that map to members of
> the
> Coz99NEDfest who won the drawing in the farewell party. Those maps
> were
> individually autographed by Paul Padilla himself, with whom I have had
> many
> dives in Cozumel. He wrote the annotation and description of each of
> the Reefs on the map.
Bob,
Ahhhhhh...it's clear to me now....a tourist trap map, not a napkin map. I
may even have that old "trap map" in a tube somewhere. I'll have to look.
:-)
And "autographed" by you???? What's that all about? hahahahaha
Forest Aten
H. Huntzinger
>
> > Whenever you find this, I'd be curious to see it...
>
>
That's OK. My interest is idle curiosity.
> The chart in question is a widely referred to, and very popular and
> INFORMATIVE map, titled "The REEFS of COZUMEL ISLAND", sold in many
> stores in Cozumel over the past decade.
Any online resources for it at all, anywhere?
> > And hopefully we can get a photocopy of the map digitized of the general
> > Cozumel region's overall depths for everyone to take a look at.
>
> I wouldn't waste my time on that for the simple reason that it suffers
> the SAME lack of detail as what you digitized to show some of the
> depths around Cayman Brac and little Cayman.
>
> For example, in Little Cayman, you would NOT be able to tell the
> depths of the BOTTOMS of any of the Bloody Bay WALLS, because the scattered
> depths (soundings) shown are NOT related to the WALLS themselves, but
> merely certain selected locations off the island.
Sometimes we simply have to just make the best of what we can from
someone else's data.
I agree that this is philisophical and that it depends to what degree of
resolution we want, but let's not forget that this is "free" data that
we didn't have to pay for its collection...
Even so, as a rough first cut, I don't think its so bad that it should
be completely disregarded: in fact, I think it raises the question of
what the appropriate definition is for what is the "bottom of a wall".
There really aren't all that many walls that are true verticals, and
eventually they all must end. What's far more common are walls that
taper off into steep slopes...how do you choose to define where their
"bottoms" are? Do we set an arbitrary value (say 30 or 45 degrees),
where the rate of descent has not yet levelled off?
> I can describe the NEAREST soundings to the Las Palmas Reef and WALL
> on that chart.
>
> It showed what appeared to be the LEDGE area of Las Palmas Reef,
> between Paraiso Reef and Chankanaab Reef. The readings are (in meters):
>
> 11, 14, 21, 19, and 30.
>
> ...
>
> The NEAREST three depth-soundings parallel to the depths on the ledge
> shown above are 201 (meters) off the Paraiso Reef, 190 m south of Las
> Palmas, and 177m just south of Chankanaab.
>
> Thus, the 400 feet depth at the BOTTOM of the Las Palmas Wall is
> perfectly consistent with those depths in the chart in question.
I'm having problems following you here. Are the values
11-14-21-19-30-201-190-177m a straight-line string of values (and I
assume - presumably perpendicular to shore)? If that is correct, then
I'd agree that it looks like you've hit a depth plateau at ~200m, at
least temporarily.
-hh
Reef Fish
> Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com (Reef Fish) wrote:
>
>
>
> > The chart in question is a widely referred to, and very popular and
> > INFORMATIVE map, titled "The REEFS of COZUMEL ISLAND", sold in many
> > stores in Cozumel over the past decade.
>
> Any online resources for it at all, anywhere?
Not that I am aware. The last time I priced it at the Cozumel stores,
they were selling at $8 to $10 USD each. There are some online maps in
the Cozumel webpage maintained by Chuck Jones. But you get what you pay
for in those. :)
>
>
> > > And hopefully we can get a photocopy of the map digitized of the general
> > > Cozumel region's overall depths for everyone to take a look at.
> >
> > I wouldn't waste my time on that for the simple reason that it suffers
> > the SAME lack of detail as what you digitized to show some of the
> > depths around Cayman Brac and little Cayman.
> >
> > For example, in Little Cayman, you would NOT be able to tell the
> > depths of the BOTTOMS of any of the Bloody Bay WALLS, because the scattered
> > depths (soundings) shown are NOT related to the WALLS themselves, but
> > merely certain selected locations off the island.
>
>
> Sometimes we simply have to just make the best of what we can from
> someone else's data.
That was why I posted the depths of those few spots most relevant to
the Las Palmas reef and wall.
> Even so, as a rough first cut, I don't think its so bad that it should
> be completely disregarded: in fact, I think it raises the question of
> what the appropriate definition is for what is the "bottom of a wall".
There may be pedantic definition for what that is, but when someone
says he has reached the bottom and was standing on it -- that was good
enough for me to take that as the "bottom".
>
> There really aren't all that many walls that are true verticals,
True. Palau has a few.
Doesn't have to be vertical at all. None of the walls in Cocos Island
is vertical like anything in Bloody Bay, but you know that the "bottom"
is about 180 fsw, and you would have to take a shovel to make the
bottom deeper.
-- Bob.
H. Huntzinger
> >
> > Sometimes we simply have to just make the best of what we can from
> > someone else's data.
>
> That was why I posted the depths of those few spots most relevant to
> the Las Palmas reef and wall.
Which went unclarified.
> > Even so, as a rough first cut, I don't think its so bad that it should
> > be completely disregarded: in fact, I think it raises the question of
> > what the appropriate definition is for what is the "bottom of a wall".
>
> There may be pedantic definition for what that is, but when someone
> says he has reached the bottom and was standing on it -- that was good
> enough for me to take that as the "bottom".
Sure. Because of topological variation and scale, the human scale will
always find some localized topological abberations large enough to
"stand on". Personally, this would lead me to be a bit cautious when
listening to such claims (local knowledge is a big help here).
> > There really aren't all that many walls that are true verticals,
>
> True. Palau has a few.
>
> Doesn't have to be vertical at all...
Exactly my point: the 'bottom of the wall' is not necessarily also the
'bottom of the sheer vertical'.
FWIW, what I was thinking of was a vertical that then transitioned to a
steep angle:
___ A
...|
...|
...|
...|B
....\
......\
........\
..........\
............C ______
Obviously, A is the top of the wall.
Some might say that B is the wall's bottom, whereas others might say
that since walls don't have to be true verticals, its C. Pendantically,
I'd say that any debate here is really only due to poor definitions :-)
-hh
Ron Lee
>
>Some might say that B is the wall's bottom, whereas others might say
>that since walls don't have to be true verticals, its C. Pendantically,
>I'd say that any debate here is really only due to poor definitions :-)
>
>
>-hh
Which adds to the right question. How wide (extending from the wall
to the middle of the channel) did that "floor" at 400' extend and what
is the definition of a floor? If the vis was 70' horizontal and at
120' width the assumed floor dropped to 1200', was it really a floor?
Ron Lee
Reef Fish
> Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com (Reef Fish) wrote:
> > >
> > > Sometimes we simply have to just make the best of what we can from
> > > someone else's data.
> >
> > That was why I posted the depths of those few spots most relevant to
> > the Las Palmas reef and wall.
>
> Which went unclarified.
That's because you misread what I had written and made the grossly
erroneous assumption as you did (and now) that the readings were
"perpendicular" to the shore.
> > It showed what appeared to be the LEDGE area of Las Palmas Reef,
> > between Paraiso Reef and Chankanaab Reef. The readings are (in meters):
> >
> > 11, 14, 21, 19, and 30.
The ledge is PARALLEL to the shore spanned by those reefs. Those
5 readings cover about nautical MILES.
So the LEDGE depths are
Parasio Las Palmas Chankanaab
11 14 21 19 30
> > The NEAREST three depth-soundings parallel to the depths on the ledge
> > shown above are 201 (meters) off the Paraiso Reef, 190 m south of Las
> > Palmas, and 177m just south of Chankanaab.
Is the word "parallel" too mathematical? ;)
hh> I'm having problems following you here. Are the values
hh> 11-14-21-19-30-201-190-177m a straight-line string of values (and I
hh> assume - presumably perpendicular to shore)?
Actually the relative locations are:
< ------------------- shore here -------------------------------->
Parasio Las Palmas Chankanaab
11 14 21 19 30
b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b
201 <----- 2 nautical miles -------> 190
and the next reading of 177 is about 1.5 miles from 190, on the other
side of Chankanaab.
That's how SPARSE the sounding depths are; and there is a good half
of a nautical MILE between the ledge depth and the outer depths,
with the b's much closer to the shallow than the deep.
That was why I said,
> > Thus, the 400 feet depth at the BOTTOM of the Las Palmas Wall is
> > perfectly consistent with those depths in the chart in question.
> FWIW, what I was thinking of was a vertical that then transitioned to a
> steep angle:
>
> ___ A
> ...|
> ...|
> ...|
> ...|B
> ....\
> ......\
> ........\
> ..........\
> ............C ______
>
>
> Obviously, A is the top of the wall.
That was because you assumed the readings were perpendicular to
the shore! It's more like:
> ___ A (60 feet) < 11, 14, 21, 19, 30 meters>
> ...|
> ...|
> ...|
> ...|B (400 feet) - - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
- - - - C (600 feet)
<201, 190, 177 meters>
>
> Some might say that B is the wall's bottom, whereas others might say
> that since walls don't have to be true verticals, its C. Pendantically,
> I'd say that any debate here is really only due to poor definitions :-)
and MISREADING of what PARALLEL means and misunderstanding of how
SPARSE those readings are.
>
>
> -hh
Go buy a copy of that Reef Map (and Chart). It's well worth $10.
-- Bob.
H. Huntzinger
>
> hh> I'm having problems following you here. Are the values
> hh> 11-14-21-19-30-201-190-177m a straight-line string of values (and I
> hh> assume - presumably perpendicular to shore)?
>
> Actually the relative locations are:
>
> < ------------------- shore here -------------------------------->
>
> Parasio Las Palmas Chankanaab
> 11 14 21 19 30
> b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b
>
>
> 201 <----- 2 nautical miles -------> 190
>
> and the next reading of 177 is about 1.5 miles from 190, on the other
> side of Chankanaab.
Okay, so these soundings are in rows parallel to shore, and not a single
string of readings that ran out perpendicular to shore.
> That's how SPARSE the sounding depths are...
For my needs, that's not a concern. My concern was that we basically
only have two data locations for the "perpendicular" sounding line, even
though each location has multiple data points that can be averaged:
Distance X offshore: average of 11, 14, 21, 19, 30m
Distance Y offshore: average of 177, 201, 190m
>That was why I said,
>
> > > Thus, the 400 feet depth at the BOTTOM of the Las Palmas Wall is
> > > perfectly consistent with those depths in the chart in question.
When one drops from a 60ft to a 600ft depth, one would expect to find
the intermediate depths along the way. Since 60ft < 400ft < 600ft, it
is an expected intermediate depth, and not an anomoly which may be
significant enough to be worthy of our attention.
>
> > ___ A (60 feet) < 11, 14, 21, 19, 30 meters>
> > ...|
> > ...|
> > ...|
> > ...|B (400 feet) - - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
>
> - - - - C (600 feet)
> <201, 190, 177 meters>
Yes, exactly like this.
And maybe further offshore, C becomes the 1500ft depth value that Forest
has provided citations for.
In any event, this is why I had previously said:
> >
> >
> > Some might say that B is the wall's bottom, whereas others might say
> > that since walls don't have to be true verticals, its C. Pendantically,
> > I'd say that any debate here is really only due to poor definitions :-)
Without more complete sounding data to define the local topology we
really don't know what the total slope of the total drop-off is. As
such, there may or may not be a "ledge", "shelf" or "step" at 400ft that
would allow it to be defined as the bottom of one section of the wall's
drop-off or not.
> Go buy a copy of that Reef Map (and Chart). It's well worth $10.
If it were available online, I probably would. Next time you're in
Cozumel, pick one up for me and mail it to me when you get home and I'll
pay you for it; I assume you still have (or can find) my mailing address.
-hh
Reef Fish
> Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com (Reef Fish) wrote:
> >
> > hh> I'm having problems following you here. Are the values
> > hh> 11-14-21-19-30-201-190-177m a straight-line string of values (and I
> > hh> assume - presumably perpendicular to shore)?
> >
> > Actually the relative locations are:
> >
> > < ------------------- shore here -------------------------------->
> >
> > Parasio Las Palmas Chankanaab
> > 11 14 21 19 30
> > b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b
> >
> >
> > 201 <----- 2 nautical miles -------> 190
> >
> > and the next reading of 177 is about 1.5 miles from 190, on the other
> > side of Chankanaab.
>
> Okay, so these soundings are in rows parallel to shore, and not a single
> string of readings that ran out perpendicular to shore.
>
>
>
> > That's how SPARSE the sounding depths are...
>
> For my needs, that's not a concern.
Why not? What's your need? You haven't even been to Cozumel, have
you? You need to get into some frivolous argument? :-)
> Distance X offshore: average of 11, 14, 21, 19, 30m
Those were NOT averages. More unwarranted assumptions. They
were sounding depths at particular spots.
> >That was why I said,
> >
> > > > Thus, the 400 feet depth at the BOTTOM of the Las Palmas Wall is
> > > > perfectly consistent with those depths in the chart in question.
That's ALL one can infer from ALL available data in this thread.
If B is 100 feet wide, it would have been the BOTTOM, by all reasonable
estimation. The diver said he stood at the BOTTOM. I am saying it
for the last time: that's enough for ME. If you don't like that
to be consider the bottom, it's perfectly fine for you to argue that
eventually the bottom of the Las Palmas wall is at the bottom of
the trench several miles deep. ;-)
> > Go buy a copy of that Reef Map (and Chart). It's well worth $10.
>
> If it were available online, I probably would. Next time you're in
> Cozumel, pick one up for me and mail it to me when you get home and I'll
> pay you for it; I assume you still have (or can find) my mailing address.
Below is Paul's web page:
http://www.cozumel-diving.net/paul/
I am sure he'll be happy to sell you a copy, and may even autograph
it for you.
-- Bob.
H. Huntzinger
>
> " H. Huntzinger" wrote:
>
> >
> > For my needs, that's not a concern.
>
> Why not? What's your need?
Just curiosity about general Caribbean stuff. For example, one of the
.PDF references that Forest provided shows that the currents from Cayman
sweep westward to Mexico, then turn north, go up through the Cozumel
channel and then out into the Gulf.
FWIW, other Caribbean-oriened resources includes watching satellite
tracking on Sea Turtles: http://www.seaturtle.org
Consider the synergistic summation of both datasets, and you can infer
the bearing that turtles migrating from Cayman swim (versus their actual
net heading). YMMV, but I often find this kind of stuff interesting.
> > Distance X offshore: average of 11, 14, 21, 19, 30m
>
> Those were NOT averages...
Yes, I know that: they're the values that you had previously claimed
averaged to 60ft. Please stop trying to invent something to argue over.
> > >That was why I said,
> > >
> > > > > Thus, the 400 feet depth at the BOTTOM of the Las Palmas Wall is
> > > > > perfectly consistent with those depths in the chart in question.
>
> That's ALL one can infer from ALL available data in this thread.
I disagree: there's also the 1500ft bottom depth mentioned by Forest.
> If B is 100 feet wide, it would have been the BOTTOM, by all reasonable
> estimation.
As I previously said, if it is can depend on the choice of definitions.
> The diver said he stood at the BOTTOM. I am saying it
> for the last time: that's enough for ME.
Fine for you, and your definitions, because I now understand you.
But my curiosity for things does raise a question: by what descriptive
names do you then call the depths below your "bottom"?
> If you don't like that to be consider the bottom, it's perfectly fine
> for you to argue that eventually the bottom of the Las Palmas wall is
> at the bottom of the trench several miles deep. ;-)
My question would be how far removed from this location is the 1500ft
bottom depths in the channel that were mentioned by Forest? If its
within a mile or two, I'd not call 400ft or 600ft to be the "local
bottom", but instead part of the wall's drop-off.
> Below is Paul's web page:
>
> http://www.cozumel-diving.net/paul/
I'll take a look; thanks.
-hh
H. Huntzinger
"wider than is visible" gets into human perception & performance issues;
I'll agree that here, it would tend to accentuate the perceived
significance of a finding.
BTW, let's not also forget that the gas the diver was using at 400ft
will have a huge effect on performance and perception too.
Getting back to the bottom question itself, I think it will mostly come
down to where the "knee in the curve" is within the overall topology.
For example, after the shelf at 400ft, what happens? The 200m depth
line tells us that it continues to get deeper, but we don't know much
about the rate of depth change. If 400ft was the knee and the
subsequent depth increase is relatively gradual, then it may be
reasonable to call 400ft the floor (Note: even more so, if there are
other affirming factors, such as a change in bottom material: coral to
sand, rock to mud, etc). But if after the 400ft shelf, the drop-off
continues at a reasonably steep rate, then the 400ft shelf was obviously
just a transient, and the deeper the ultimate local bottom is, the more
and more obvious it becomes that it can be no more than a mere transient
by accepted maritime standards.
Of course, that 400fsw could still very reasonably be the 'bottom of the
vertical section', or some other localized topological element of
interest to divers, and this is where clear, objective definitions help
resist useless arguing over avoidable misunderstandings.
-hh
Ron Lee
>
>Of course, that 400fsw could still very reasonably be the 'bottom of the
>vertical section', or some other localized topological element of
>interest to divers, and this is where clear, objective definitions help
>resist useless arguing over avoidable misunderstandings.
>
>-hh
Hugh, we are saying the same thing. What constitutes a floor in the
oceanographic sense as opposed to a diver based upon limited knowledge
of the local topography.
Bob has never answered this question other than to say "XXX says
so..thus I believe it." If XXX says the moon is made of partially
hydrogenated fat, would he believe that?
Ron Lee
Forest Aten
I contacted Dr. Rena Bonam, Chair of the Geology Dept. at Baylor university,
inquiring about what bathymetric charts might be available for the Cozumel
area. Rena has run a very fine marine research lab in the Caribbean for the
Baylor University system for decades. She is also a published expert in the
coral reef and gives lectures on the subject often. She in turn contacted
Judith Lang for this same information. Judith just completed the latest
AGRAA survey of Cozumel, which is just out. While this survey is not
dedicated to Cozumel...Judith knows her stuff. She made the referral below.
I've ordered a copy of both maps.
Regards,
Forest Aten
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
Rena and Forest,
A quick google search for Coz + topo maps turned up the following
Cozumel
by Mexican Government Pub Date:1998
Topographic maps produced by the Mexican Government at 1:250,000 scale.
Note: This is not a detailed street map of the title location....
Add to Cart Price $13
Item #TMMX3066 Scale 1:250,000 (1 inch = 3.9 miles)
at:
http://www.tamassee.com/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/incfiles/T/M/mx.asp?E+bookstore
They are even cheaper at
http://www.omnimap.com/catalog/int/mexico2.htm
and it looks as it there is also a 1:50:000 scale for Coz, too.
Happy new year y'all,
Judy
H. Huntzinger
> " H. Huntzinger" <{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> >
> >Of course, that 400fsw could still very reasonably be the 'bottom of the
> >vertical section', or some other localized topological element of
> >interest to divers, and this is where clear, objective definitions help
> >resist useless arguing over avoidable misunderstandings.
> >
> >-hh
>
> Hugh, we are saying the same thing. What constitutes a floor in the
> oceanographic sense as opposed to a diver based upon limited knowledge
> of the local topography.
Sure...and I'm also willing to be open-minded and make accomodation that
the diver really intended to say something slightly different, but it
wasn't well communicated and ended up being misunderstood.
> Bob has never answered this question other than to say "XXX says
> so..thus I believe it." If XXX says the moon is made of partially
> hydrogenated fat, would he believe that?
He can believe whatever he wants. I wanted to understand what it was
that he was trying to say. That's now been done, so its time to move on.
-hh
Reef Fish
> ronlee...@pcisys.net (Ron Lee) wrote:
> > Bob has never answered this question other than to say "XXX says
> > so..thus I believe it." If XXX says the moon is made of partially
> > hydrogenated fat, would he believe that?
Ron, you ahould have let well alone. You have made a career out of
being an Adora IDIOT and a pest in this ng and you think it's time
for you to come in behind Hugh's coat tail to make your snide remarks
of vacuous substance?
> He can believe whatever he wants. I wanted to understand what it was
> that he was trying to say. That's now been done, so its time to move on.
Hugh, if you had read my post carefully, you would NOT have gotten
the readings of the soundings PERPENDICULAR to the shore line, and
you would not have misunderstood what you did misunderstand.
I left that OBVIOUS misreading without commenting, and Hugh thought
he had found his nit and persisted, even after my response.
I carefully and calmly explained what your reading error was, and that
for MY discussion from a diver's point of view, the bottom of the
Las Palmas wall has NOTHING to do with what happens miles from the
bottom where a diver sets foot.
Just read the ENTIRE thread from where I made my initial statement,
a tangential one, on SCUBA DIVING, and you'll see the absurdity of
Forest Aten's follow-ups, which in turn were picked up and compounded
the absurdity by Hugh and Ron Lee.
This post explains WHY.
Others such has Ron Lee may have a grudge against me for exposing their
idiocy, but Hugh is the ONLY person in all newsgroups who acknowledged
that he held a "PERMANENT GRUDGE" against me, since 1996. The grudge
finally surfaced when he tried to bar me from Scuba-L, with the help
of Nick Simicich (who was the owner). The result was that EVERYONE
who was with anything in scuba posting (except Hugh) has VOLUNTARILY
abandoned that list.
Scuba-L is comatose if not moribund because of Hugh's GRUDGE backfired.
There was a total of 7 posts in rec.scuba SINCE Dec 1, 2003!
Three were periodic postings of CENSORSHIP RULES. Two posts by
Hugh, and two by a new comer since the Scuba-L massacre in 2000.
Just go to the "advanced groups search" section of
and search using the keywords 'supreme hypocrite' for articles in
rec.scuba, and you'll find BOTH Hugh and Ron Lee featured.
Hugh, follow your own advice to Ron Lee:
hh> < ,,, > its time to move on.
-- Bob.
Ron Lee
floor and does the supposed floor that you want to believe in fit into
that description?
Simple question.....so answer it
Ron Lee
Reef Fish
>
> Simple question.....so answer it
>
> Ron Lee
>
>
> Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com (Reef Fish) wrote:
>
> >" H. Huntzinger" <{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-...@huntzinger.com> wrote in message news:<{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba-73D2E...@news-east.ash.giganews.com>...
> >> ronlee...@pcisys.net (Ron Lee) wrote:
> >
> >
> >> > Bob has never answered this question other than to say "XXX says
> >> > so..thus I believe it." If XXX says the moon is made of partially
> >> > hydrogenated fat, would he believe that?
Your question needs to be answered? You are as much interested in
depth charts as you are the hydrogenated fat in YOUR HEAD!
chilly
"Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> ronlee...@pcisys.net (Ron Lee) wrote in message
news:<3ff8304...@news.pcisys.net>...
> >
> > Simple question.....so answer it
> >
> > Ron Lee
>
> Your question needs to be answered? You are as much interested in
> depth charts as you are the hydrogenated fat in YOUR HEAD!
>
So, then Bob, you are saying you don't know the answer?
>
Reef Fish
chilli, I am saying I had already responded to Hugh fully on the
subject, and you are the same officious gnat (I actually had much
better fitting words that starts with letters "a" or "b" that I'll
leave it to your imagination) who never followed any thread to
comprehend the substance of it, but always quick to grab some line
from some idiot such as Ron Lee to make your own noise.
You need a life ALMOST as much as he does.
-- Bob.
chilly
"Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8fb7380b.04010...@posting.google.com...
> "chilly" <sla...@shaw.canada> wrote in message
news:<Bd0Kb.945754$6C4.471137@pd7tw1no>...
> > "Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:8fb7380b.04010...@posting.google.com...
> > > ronlee...@pcisys.net (Ron Lee) wrote in message
> > news:<3ff8304...@news.pcisys.net>...
> > > >
> > > > Simple question.....so answer it
> > > >
> > > > Ron Lee
> >
> > >
> > > Your question needs to be answered? You are as much interested in
> > > depth charts as you are the hydrogenated fat in YOUR HEAD!
> > >
> >
> >
> > So, then Bob, you are saying you don't know the answer?
>
> chilli, I am saying I had already responded to Hugh fully on the
> subject, and you are the same officious gnat
You'd certainly understand the true meaning of "officious" and "gnat".
>(I actually had much
> better fitting words that starts with letters "a" or "b" that I'll
> leave it to your imagination) who never followed any thread to
> comprehend the substance of it, but always quick to grab some line
> from some idiot such as Ron Lee to make your own noise.
>
>
> You need a life ALMOST as much as he does.
ahahahahahahaha
Speaking of being a Usenet joke . . . you also seem to be quite familiar
with that.
ahahahhahahhaaa
H. Huntzinger
>
> You'd certainly understand the true meaning of "officious" and "gnat".
From Clemson's Phi Sigma Pi "Rate Your Professor" feedback page?
Bob's Cozumel map's closest depth soundings off the drop-off are 600fsw,
yet Bob insists that the drop-off's bottom is actually at 400fsw
instead, because some (unspecified) diver said so.
Bob had previously represented these 600fsw soundings as "close" to the
drop-off, but Bob now wants to represent them as "far" (miles), because
his own information otherwise undermines his own case. Which explains
why my immediate request for clarifiation was ignored.
Insoar as what the actual topology of the Cozumel drop-off is, if it was
indeed "miles" out to the 600fsw depth sounding, I'd be inclined to put
more credence than I currently do in the 400ft-to-bottom claim that Bob
believes.
I've simply not been personally convinced one way or the other, for the
horizontal range out to the 600ft depth sounding is a missing piece of
data.
If Bob is satisfied with the data voids in the status quo, good for Bob.
-hh
chilly
> "chilly" <sla...@shaw.canada> wrote:
> >
> > You'd certainly understand the true meaning of "officious" and "gnat".
>
> From Clemson's Phi Sigma Pi "Rate Your Professor" feedback page?
I wonder if he's also as familiar with "buffoon"?
> Bob's Cozumel map's closest depth soundings off the drop-off are 600fsw,
> yet Bob insists that the drop-off's bottom is actually at 400fsw
> instead, because some (unspecified) diver said so.
But, but, but . . . he's Bob and he said it. Shouldn't that be enough for
you?
>
> Bob had previously represented these 600fsw soundings as "close" to the
> drop-off, but Bob now wants to represent them as "far" (miles), because
> his own information otherwise undermines his own case. Which explains
> why my immediate request for clarifiation was ignored.
But, but, but . . . Bob claims he has answered the request.
>
> Insoar as what the actual topology of the Cozumel drop-off is, if it was
> indeed "miles" out to the 600fsw depth sounding, I'd be inclined to put
> more credence than I currently do in the 400ft-to-bottom claim that Bob
> believes.
>
>
> I've simply not been personally convinced one way or the other, for the
> horizontal range out to the 600ft depth sounding is a missing piece of
> data.
>
> If Bob is satisfied with the data voids in the status quo, good for Bob.
LOL
Forest Aten
>
> From Clemson's Phi Sigma Pi "Rate Your Professor" feedback page?
>
>
Forest Aten
>
>
They've pulled all old info (sometime last year) and gone to a "review
before posting" policy. It appears that students were really "telling it
like it is/was" and some of the profs felt threatened. Lawyers were
involved. The new site is good....but no info on Bob. His "retirement" took
place before the new site was put up. They won't release any archival
information, stating that it would take way to much time to review the
material....and edit. I wonder it this is/would be good for Bob????
Forest Aten
Reef Fish
>
>
> Bob's Cozumel map's closest depth soundings off the drop-off are 600fsw,
> yet Bob insists that the drop-off's bottom is actually at 400fsw
> instead, because some (unspecified) diver said so.
Hugh, you sure picked a wrong time to exercise your "permanent grudge"
because (1) your own posts make you look silly, and (2) you have to
side with the known idiots and noise makers to make your own noise.
Get over it and MOVE ON, Hugh.
> Bob had previously represented these 600fsw soundings as "close" to the
> drop-off, but Bob now wants to represent them as "far" (miles), because
> his own information otherwise undermines his own case. Which explains
> why my immediate request for clarifiation was ignored.
No information was ignored. You request for clarification WAS
clarified. The sounding readings were MILES apart, as given in
a post LAST YEAR in response to your request for clarification:
> > Actually the relative locations are:
> >
> > < ------------------- shore here -------------------------------->
> >
> > Parasio Las Palmas Chankanaab
> > 11 14 21 19 30
> > b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b
> >
> >
> > 201 <----- 2 nautical miles -------> 190
You MISREAD my descriptions and posts to begin with to have made the
completely erroreous assumptions.
You FORGOT all the clarifications (see above) to make your NOISE:
hh> Bob now wants to represent them as "far" (miles)
Do you know that a nautical mile is a MILE?
I further clarified that if the immediate bottom was 400 fsw, as STOOD
by the diver, and even if the next dropoff is half a mile or 100 yards
away, for SCUBA DIVERS that was the relevant "bottom".
I am sure you forgot THAT too.
> If Bob is satisfied with the data voids in the status quo, good for Bob.
>
>
>
> -hh
Get over your GRUDGE, Hugh.
You are just repeating your invalid points now, which are directly refuted
as had been previously shown to you.
-- Bob.
William Rampartson
"Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8fb7380b.04010...@posting.google.com...
> Do you know that a nautical mile is a MILE?
I've been reading this stuff with some interest...so I'll bite: Why is a
Nautical Mile a MILE? And if that indeed is the case, why is one knot per
hour of travel faster than one mile per hour of travel.
Reef Fish
> "Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8fb7380b.04010...@posting.google.com...
>
> > Do you know that a nautical mile is a MILE?
>
> I've been reading this stuff with some interest...so I'll bite: Why is a
> Nautical Mile a MILE?
You mean you're so stuck in the imperial system of measure and the
statue mile (1760 YARDS or 5280 FEET <as in foot in some poster's
mouth :-)> ) that you neglected that there is something called the
metric system? For an explanation of the nautical mile, see, e.g.:
http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/miles.htm
> And if that indeed is the case, why is one knot per
> hour of travel faster than one mile per hour of travel.
That's because one knot (NOT 'knot per hour') is one nautical mile
per hour, and since one nautical mile is equal to 1.150779 miles
that's why one knot is faster than 1 mph. For the knotty
problem of conversion between nautical miles and statue miles, see:
http://www.altavista.com/web/results?q=convert+1+Nautical%20Mile
That's why when Hugh lamely and falsely complained:
hh> but Bob now wants to represent them as "far" (miles),
I said,
RF> The sounding readings were MILES apart, as given in a post
RF> LAST YEAR in response to your request for clarification:
> > Actually the relative locations are:
> >
> > < ------------------- shore here -------------------------------
> >
> > 201 <----- 2 nautical miles -------> 190
and asked Hugh the question you cited:
> > Do you know that a nautical mile is a MILE?
It's not only a MILE, but is LONGER than a (statue) mile, so there
was no exaggeration that the sounding depths were miles apart!
This should clarify what a "knot" and a "nautical mile" are, and how
they related to the thread in question.
-- Bob.
chilly
"Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8fb7380b.04010...@posting.google.com...
> This should clarify what a "knot" and a "nautical mile" are, and how
> they related to the thread in question.
ahahahahahahahahahhaha, stop it,yer killin me here. ahahahahahahaha
Reef Fish
> > From Clemson's Phi Sigma Pi "Rate Your Professor" feedback page?
> >
> >
> H.H.
You know, this shows how DISPICABLE supposed "discussants" in a scuba
forum can get, when they have to try to make innuendos and libelous
statements on matters that are entirely unrelated to what is being
discussed in this forum! NONE whatsoever.
But I'll comment just to tell it like it is!
> They've pulled all old info (sometime last year) and gone to a "review
> before posting" policy. It appears that students were really "telling it
> like it is/was" and some of the profs felt threatened.
Indeed, SOME professors were threatened.
1. Those who didn't have tenure yet.
2. Those whose tenure and promotion DO depend (in part) on what some
irresponsible students post, including lies.
THOSE (not all) were the ones who sold their souls to the devil,
by giving out underserved high grades or passing grades, to get their
student-ratings higher, thus lowering the ACADEMIC standards and
intregrity of the university, and in turn the educational system
in the entire USA!
That's why you find college graduates in the scuba forum who took
statistics courses and even some who TAUGHT some course in stat
did not know the meaning and definitions of the terms "median"
and "mode". There are HUNDREDS of posts in rec.scuba and other
newsgroups to give solid evidence of the sad state of affairs
of the USA educational system.
You BET I got some libelous lies from students whom I flunked!
Was I threatened? Did I compromise my standards? You can bet your
LIFE that I did neither.
I was already a tenured Full Professor long before any of the
Fraternity crap came along. I held the line on minimal STANDARDS,
and when the students couldn't meet those standards, they get F's
-- no ifs or buts about it.
> Lawyers were involved. The new site is good....but no info on Bob.
What is that supposed to mean, Forest? What info on Bob would have
made any difference on what or how I tell IDIOTS in this forum when
they acted like idiots? Such as what you're doing now.
IDIOTIC!
My personal integrity and credibility standards are not affected in
the least by direct false accusations or sneaky innuendos by
posters who couldn't face the flunking grade they received in what
they posted!
> His "retirement" took
> place before the new site was put up. They won't release any archival
> information, stating that it would take way to much time to review the
> material....and edit. I wonder it this is/would be good for Bob????
>
> Forest Aten
Get a life, Forest (and Hugh who started this)!
If you want to dig some dirt on me that's RELEVANT to any of the
scuba discussion forums, why don't you comb the archives and see what
you can find? There must be easily over 10,000 posts -- most of
them retrievable by groups.google.com, and almost as many in LISTS
that are not archived by google.
Even YOU (Forest) had tried, without success, to find something in
all the old posts that would compromise my credibility and integrity!
The MORE you dig, the MORE you'll find the true characters of IDIOTS
like you, Ron Lee, and those whom I have called idiots.
That's the way it had been since 1988 (in the scuba forums). That's
the way it is, and will be.
That's one of the reasons I took my Clemson posting userid away from
my postings, just so IDIOTS like you would not use that as an excuse
to libel either myself or the institution.
But you went OUT OF YOUR WAY to make slanderous statements out of
something non-existent.
I did NOT use any lawyer in anything relating to Clemson, even though
I easily could have, such as the temporary suspension of my email
userid because Quinn Harry LIED about what I posted in his letter of
complaint to the President of Clemson. I could have, and lots of
posters in Scuba-L said I should have, sued the pants out of Quinn.
I chose not to, given his 100% retraction of his lies and his repeated,
and apparently sincere, public and private apologies.
Let this be a WARNING to you, Forest, and anyone else.
If you persist in bring up your libelous statements and innuendos
about my academic career and integrity, you had better be prepared
to hire some lawyers to DEFEND you for your irresponsible and
stupid act!
In the final analysis, just the fact that you couldn't stay within
the realm of SCUBA DISCUSSION and the issues within it, and have
to resort to gratuitous postings on matters completely UNRELATED
to this newsgroup, shows how intellectually and ethically bankrupt
you are!
-- Bob.
chilly
"Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8fb7380b.04010...@posting.google.com...
news:<fZhKb.65354$I07.285470@attbi_s53>...
> > > From Clemson's Phi Sigma Pi "Rate Your Professor" feedback page?
> > >
> > >
> > H.H.
>
>
> You know, this shows how DISPICABLE supposed "discussants" in a scuba
> forum can get, when they have to try to make innuendos and libelous
> statements on matters that are entirely unrelated to what is being
> discussed in this forum! NONE whatsoever.
It was humor Bob, but you don't know what that is apparently.
>
> But I'll comment just to tell it like it is!
>
>
>
> That's why you find college graduates in the scuba forum who took
> statistics courses and even some who TAUGHT some course in stat
> did not know the meaning and definitions of the terms "median"
> and "mode". There are HUNDREDS of posts in rec.scuba and other
> newsgroups to give solid evidence of the sad state of affairs
> of the USA educational system.
Yeah, mean their professors passed them through without knowing the mean and
definitions of the terms because the professors felt threatened by what the
students may have had to say about them?
> You BET I got some libelous lies from students whom I flunked!
> Was I threatened? Did I compromise my standards? You can bet your
> LIFE that I did neither.
I believe that. I don't compromise my standards when reviewing my student
reveiws either. If they've offered something of value, I may try to
incomporate it into my teaching methods. If they merely trashed everything,
then I consider the source. Was it a bad student?. Did the student have an
attitude or learning problem? If so, then I will discount that student's
review. But I do not fear it.
>
> I was already a tenured Full Professor long before any of the
> Fraternity crap came along. I held the line on minimal STANDARDS,
> and when the students couldn't meet those standards, they get F's
> -- no ifs or buts about it.
Well, I also go out of my way to make every effort that my students don't
end up with Fs. If I see someone falling along the way, I have a discussion
with them. I offer them my support. I ask what they need. If it is within
reason and within my abilitiy, then I will provide it. After all, my work
as an instructor, is to instruct. I have no desire to see any of my
students fail. I'm on their side.
(snip)>
>
> > His "retirement" took
> > place before the new site was put up. They won't release any archival
> > information, stating that it would take way to much time to review the
> > material....and edit. I wonder it this is/would be good for Bob????
> >
> > Forest Aten
>
> Get a life, Forest (and Hugh who started this)!
>
> If you want to dig some dirt on me that's RELEVANT to any of the
> scuba discussion forums,
They don't need to dig anywhere. You are always right here amusing the heck
out of us.
<why don't you comb the archives and see what
> you can find? There must be easily over 10,000 posts -- most of
> them retrievable by groups.google.com, and almost as many in LISTS
> that are not archived by google.
Prodigious posting doesn't necessarily equait to a body of work that's of
any relevance to this discussion either.
>
> Even YOU (Forest) had tried, without success, to find something in
> all the old posts that would compromise my credibility and integrity!
>
> The MORE you dig, the MORE you'll find the true characters of IDIOTS
> like you, Ron Lee, and those whom I have called idiots.
ahahahahhaha, again, aghahahhaaa
> That's the way it had been since 1988 (in the scuba forums). That's
> the way it is, and will be.
>
> That's one of the reasons I took my Clemson posting userid away from
> my postings, just so IDIOTS like you would not use that as an excuse
> to libel either myself or the institution.
>
> But you went OUT OF YOUR WAY to make slanderous statements out of
> something non-existent.
>
> I did NOT use any lawyer in anything relating to Clemson, even though
> I easily could have, such as the temporary suspension of my email
> userid because Quinn Harry LIED about what I posted in his letter of
> complaint to the President of Clemson. I could have, and lots of
> posters in Scuba-L said I should have, sued the pants out of Quinn.
> I chose not to, given his 100% retraction of his lies and his repeated,
> and apparently sincere, public and private apologies.
Interesting, I'd have been none the wiser if you hadn't explained in the
paragraph above. I jst assumed he meant that lawyers had been involved and
assisted in the preparation of the new site. I didn't suspect that he was
referring to some nasty business you found yourself in. Revealing.
>
> Let this be a WARNING to you, Forest, and anyone else.
>
> If you persist in bring up your libelous statements and innuendos
> about my academic career and integrity, you had better be prepared
> to hire some lawyers to DEFEND you for your irresponsible and
> stupid act!
You'd be their own best witness.
>
> In the final analysis, just the fact that you couldn't stay within
> the realm of SCUBA DISCUSSION and the issues within it, and have
> to resort to gratuitous postings on matters completely UNRELATED
> to this newsgroup, shows how intellectually and ethically bankrupt
> you are!
Ya mean like how you always bring up Scuba L and all those other sites. Is
that the sort of thing you are referring to here?
H. Huntzinger
> >
> > From Clemson's Phi Sigma Pi "Rate Your Professor" feedback page?
> >
> >
> http://www.cavalierdaily.com:2001/.Archives/1999/January/20/edkatie.asp
Try this one:
H. Huntzinger
>
> No information was ignored. You request for clarification WAS
> clarified.
It took two requests before you responded, hence the statement.
Cite: my original clarification request was in my 12/28/03 08:44 post,
and your direct response to it was your 12/28/03 17:49 post.
If you can find just which part of your text in your above post clearly
and directly addressed the clarification request, I'll apologize. But
if its not present there, then an apology from you to me is in order.
> I further clarified that if the immediate bottom was 400 fsw, as STOOD
> by the diver, and even if the next dropoff is half a mile or 100 yards
> away, for SCUBA DIVERS that was the relevant "bottom".
>
> I am sure you forgot THAT too.
Incorrect. It was this statement that prompted additiona discussion.
Here's one quote from that discussion (12/31/03 19:44):
RF> If B is 100 feet wide, it would have been the BOTTOM, by
RF> all reasonable estimation.
HH> As I previously said, if it is can depend on the choice of
HH> definitions.
> Get over your GRUDGE, Hugh.
Like How? Virtually every time I try to have a civilized conversation
with you, you inevitably revive and instigate. Let the past go already.
> You are just repeating your invalid points now, which are directly
> refuted as had been previously shown to you.
Incorrect. We simply have different sets of our chosen definitions.
This has lead to different statements, partly due to differences in
interests and perspectives.
You can choose whichever definition set you want. So can I. Move on.
-hh
Ron Lee
>
>Even YOU (Forest) had tried, without success, to find something in
>all the old posts that would compromise my credibility and integrity!
Credibility is enhanced by name calling? Seems odd to me.
>The MORE you dig, the MORE you'll find the true characters of IDIOTS
>like you, Ron Lee, and those whom I have called idiots.
>
Credible poster?
>
>That's one of the reasons I took my Clemson posting userid away from
>my postings, just so IDIOTS like you would not use that as an excuse
>to libel either myself or the institution.
Yet you continued for a long time to act childish while using the
Clemson email account. Interesting.
>In the final analysis, just the fact that you couldn't stay within
>the realm of SCUBA DISCUSSION and the issues within it, and have
>to resort to gratuitous postings on matters completely UNRELATED
>to this newsgroup, shows how intellectually and ethically bankrupt
>you are!
>
>-- Bob.
Right Bob. We are all wrong. You are right. Snicker.
Ron Lee
Forest Aten
HH
Very interesting....
I have a little time and was just wasting it trying to figure out how/why
this self proclaimed giant in the academic world (Bob) got to be such an
angry old man. (I guess we could ask him. It might be entertaining. Thinking
of you Chilly...;-) At times Bob has some very good information to offer
up....but then always ruins it as he alienates everyone who may have
interest in the discussion or he goes off the wall as people offer up better
information. He doesn't seem to want to let anyone else contribute. I'm
starting to be convinced that he really thinks that HE is ALWAYS right. Oh
well...
Bob is manipulative, always trying to convince people that "his truth" is
the real truth. Probably a part of the manipulative nature of statistics. He
spent his life twisting data to do what HE thinks is "his/the truth"...and I
suspect that rec.scuba is his outlet after retirement. I am surprised that
he has become so casual and noisy with his data. Not much academic integrity
in his newsgroups efforts. I expect more from a guy with HIS vita. We get
mostly name calling and nasty comments (I'd also expect more dignity and
professionalism from a university professor, ret. ....Zippo on that. He
makes no effort.) and not a very impressive demonstration of data
manipulation here in the rec.scuba newsgroup. This reminds me of something
Napoleon liked to say (and think), 'The truth is not half so important as
what people think to be true'. Most know how Napoleon ended his career.
Waterloo. I'm not sure Bob is thinking any clearer than Napoleon did at that
point in his career.
Forest Aten
P.S. forgive the caps....I still like to poke fun at the guy....
William Rampartson
"Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8fb7380b.04010...@posting.google.com...
> "William Rampartson" <no...@m.com> wrote in message
news:<_4kKb.90$An4....@news.uswest.net>...
> > "Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:8fb7380b.04010...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > Do you know that a nautical mile is a MILE?
> >
> > I've been reading this stuff with some interest...so I'll bite: Why is a
> > Nautical Mile a MILE?
>
> You mean you're so stuck in the imperial system of measure and the
> statue mile (1760 YARDS or 5280 FEET <as in foot in some poster's
> mouth :-)> ) that you neglected that there is something called the
> metric system? For an explanation of the nautical mile, see, e.g.:
>
> http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/miles.htm
>
>
> > And if that indeed is the case, why is one knot per
> > hour of travel faster than one mile per hour of travel.
>
> That's because one knot (NOT 'knot per hour') is one nautical mile
> per hour, and since one nautical mile is equal to 1.150779 miles
> that's why one knot is faster than 1 mph. For the knotty
> problem of conversion between nautical miles and statue miles, see:
>
> http://www.altavista.com/web/results?q=convert+1+Nautical%20Mile
I'll ask again...and since I am not attacking you so please skip the
hysterics this time. There is nothing to be afraid of.
1) The difference between the Statute Mile and Nautical Mile has nothing to
do with the difference between the Metric and Imperial systems of
measurement as you imply above. A Metric Mile only exists if you happen to
run track and even then is informal and still not equal to a Nautical Mile.
So being "stuck", as you put it, in the Imperial System, is precisely the
point from which to ask you these questions, since "Mile" exists in two
forms only, Statute and Nautical.
2) "knot" refers to both the linear distance of a nautical mile as well as
the speed of 1 nautical mile per hour. You may want to argue with why I used
it that way but you cannot argue the accuracy if such use. A hopefully
helpful suggestion to you: read your own cites.
But back to the point though.........
In the context of your conversation with Hugh and Forest, and with complete
disregard for the non sequiturs you offer above, when is a Nautical Mile a
Mile? And if a Nautical Mile is the same thing as a Mile, why is traveling
one nautical mile per hour faster than traveling one mile per hour?
Reef Fish
> "Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8fb7380b.04010...@posting.google.com...
> > "Forest Aten" <fores...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:<fZhKb.65354$I07.285470@attbi_s53>...
> > > > From Clemson's Phi Sigma Pi "Rate Your Professor" feedback page?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > H.H.
> >
> >
> > You know, this shows how DISPICABLE supposed "discussants" in a scuba
> > forum can get, when they have to try to make innuendos and libelous
> > statements on matters that are entirely unrelated to what is being
> > discussed in this forum! NONE whatsoever.
>
> It was humor Bob, but you don't know what that is apparently.
That's why I said you always read OUT OF CONTEXT of any thread to jump
in to make your own noise. Trust me, it was NO HUMOR, on the part of
Hugh Huntzinger AND Forest Aten. It was exactly what I said it was.
>
> >
> > But I'll comment just to tell it like it is!
> >
> >
> >
> > That's why you find college graduates in the scuba forum who took
> > statistics courses and even some who TAUGHT some course in stat
> > did not know the meaning and definitions of the terms "median"
> > and "mode". There are HUNDREDS of posts in rec.scuba and other
> > newsgroups to give solid evidence of the sad state of affairs
> > of the USA educational system.
>
> Yeah, mean their professors passed them through without knowing the mean and
> definitions of the terms because the professors felt threatened by what the
> students may have had to say about them?
Exactly. In universities where the football coach makes TEN TIMES the
salary of the President of the university (Clemson and U. of Ga, to name
just two), you can't expect the admininstrators to be as enlightened as
they could be. The motto is: Make Students Happy -- which translate
to: 1. Give out good grades. 2. Forget about minimal standards.
3. Pass everyone. The evidence in the "Rate Your Professor" at Clemson
was overwhelming that one of the WORST teachers (a grad student working
for a PhD in statistics/business at the time) got the BEST ratings
consistently for exercise (1)-(3) above. Students who took his
courses LOVES his story telling, was taught practically nothing, and
learned nothing!
That's the downside of "Rate Your Professor" at 3rd-rate universities!
"Rate Your Professor" works well at Top and prestigeous universities,
such as the Grad School of Business of the U of Chicago and Harvard
(both of which I taught as professor) where the STUDENTS are smart,
mature, and didn't mind hard work to learn and get good grades, and
are responsible enough to blame the bad grades on themselves.
Those are the two extreme worlds of academia of "Higher Learning"!
For those (the majority here, I suspect) who are not familiar with the
Good, the Bad, and the Ugly in academia in the USA do not understand
what drives the educational system of the USA at all levels down the
drain! You can quote me to anyone. An absurd example in pre-
college education was that the states of NY/NJ refused to REQUIRE
that a student pass an EIGHTH GRADE level exam in order to graduate.
It's absurd enough not the REQUIRE that they pass a TWELVETH grade
exam to graduate, but to say that passing an 8th grade exam is too
stringent a requirement is the height of absurdity in the USA
educational system.
That the English exams and IQ tests are "culturally biased" is the
most frequent excuse by those who lived in the USA their entire
lives! :-) I NEVER heard a single Asian FOREIGN student who
uses that excuse. If there's anything culturally biased, THEY
would be the prime candidates. Yet, they are ones who are
filling the vast majority of the graduate fellowships and
assistantships in the GRADUATE SCHOOLS of this country, winning
nearly ALL the prestigeous academic awards, even though their
native language is NOT English.
Excuses, euphamisms, and self-deceit: these are the forte of
the average American student. That's why they rank far below
than the students in even third world countries in some areas.
The very students who are illiterate can be found throughout the
2nd, 3rd, and lower rate universities in the USA, especially among
the atheletes. :-) "How do you spell 'mom'?" was a joke being
circulated about a top basketball player asking his roommate in a
"first tier" major university that will remain nameless here.
> > You BET I got some libelous lies from students whom I flunked!
> > Was I threatened? Did I compromise my standards? You can bet your
> > LIFE that I did neither.
>
> I believe that.
Whether you believe it or not matters not.
> I don't compromise my standards when reviewing my student
> reveiws either.
You compromised! As described by yourself:
> If they merely trashed everything,
> then I consider the source. Was it a bad student?. Did the student have an
> attitude or learning problem? If so, then I will discount that student's
> review. But I do not fear it.
You compromised! If they trashed everything, they should FLUNK!
If the students have "learning disability" or ADS, they should attend
special schools that accommodate these special needs.
In order to receive federal aids, Clemson had to waste the money
establishing a special office to help accommodate those students.
I remember vividly the "official note" those know-nothing employees
sent to all professor: that they should TAKE NOTES for the students
(no joke), give them extra time on all exams, etc., etc.
It was so absurdly ridiculous that I refused to abide by them, and
let it be known to ALL higher up administrators that under NO
circumstances would I "take special notes" for those students. They
either perform or they FLUNK. In a couple of exceptions, I did
allow the students "extra time" on exams (which other students
complain legitimately that it gave them unfair advantage). I DID
take the pre-planned "controlled experiment" to make them write
what they wrote during the "extra time" in a different color PEN
or pencil, so that we can ALL tell whether it was a case of
insufficient TIME or insufficient knowledge.
Needless to say, they produced NOTHING in the extra time beyond
what they had plenty of time to do within the regular hour. They
FLUNKED. They were among those who bad mouth me in "Rate Your
Professor".
As time went on, students caught on too. The special office was
LINED with hundreds of students who FAKED learning disabilities to
get the unfair advantage. OTHER STUDENTS were the ones who
complained about them. In time, both students AND administrators
knew not to enroll in my classes.
I am just as hard nose about my PRINCIPLES as I am hard nosed here
about IDIOTS who pose idiotic posts. In the former case, I was and
am an EDUCATOR. I never ran any office based on popularity. I
was EXTREMELY popular among the "genuine" and "good" students who
appreciate good teaching methods and good substance to have became
Deans, Department Chair, and top level researchers TODAY.
Ron Lee will probably post some impertinence about being nauseated
if he reads this far. He is an IDIOT, the product of the worst
education in the United States of America. He obviously has a
learning disability because he hasn't learned a damned thing in all
these years in rec.scuba. He makes the same idiotic remarks
without any substance in any thread of discussion as he had been
doing for years. The SLOWEST LEARNER in the rec.scuba hierarchy. ;-)
A university is an educational institution of HIGHER LEARNING. It's
not your pre-kindergarten or grade school. The professor does the
BEST possible for the students -- it's up to THEM to sink or swim.
Anything else such as what you said you do is COMPROMISING.
> > I was already a tenured Full Professor long before any of the
> > Fraternity crap came along. I held the line on minimal STANDARDS,
> > and when the students couldn't meet those standards, they get F's
> > -- no ifs or buts about it.
>
> Well, I also go out of my way to make every effort that my students don't
> end up with Fs. If I see someone falling along the way, I have a discussion
> with them. I offer them my support. I ask what they need. If it is within
> reason and within my abilitiy, then I will provide it. After all, my work
> as an instructor, is to instruct. I have no desire to see any of my
> students fail. I'm on their side.
Excuses, excuses. That's exactly the problem with teachers like you
who DON'T hold standards, and make all kinds of excuses NOT to fail
them. You are doing the students no service. You are doing your job
as an instructor a great DISSERVICE.
How many students do you have in your class? 20? 30? In prestigeous
universities there are classes of size 500! The professors lecture.
Graduate students help grade papers and hold hands like you do. But
NOBODY gets exempt from an "F" for telling sad stories for their
inability to pass the same exam as everyone else.
> (snip)>
> >
> > > His "retirement" took
> > > place before the new site was put up. They won't release any archival
> > > information, stating that it would take way to much time to review the
> > > material....and edit. I wonder it this is/would be good for Bob????
> > >
> > > Forest Aten
> >
> > Get a life, Forest (and Hugh who started this)!
> >
> > If you want to dig some dirt on me that's RELEVANT to any of the
> > scuba discussion forums,
>
> They don't need to dig anywhere. You are always right here amusing the heck
> out of us.
Sure, that's what ALL the IDIOTS say: many of them are out there in
THIS very thread: Ron Lee, you, O'Dork, and the rest. Forest Aten
is too new to know that he is among the KNOWN IDIOTS.
Birds of the same feature flock together!
I know the SILENT MAJORITY here better than any of you do. They read
my posts for INFORMATION, stay out of the way on NOISE follow-ups
generated by IDIOTS. Many of them made the same mistakes as you all
made. They are just much smarter LEARNERS.
>
> <why don't you comb the archives and see what
> > you can find? There must be easily over 10,000 posts -- most of
> > them retrievable by groups.google.com, and almost as many in LISTS
> > that are not archived by google.
>
> Prodigious posting doesn't necessarily equait to a body of work that's of
> any relevance to this discussion either.
It's for the READERS to decide its relevance and information content.
My point there is why would anyone NEED to go outside rec.scuba.* if
they are trying to discredit me! Why drag my university career and
professorship into their cesspool?
THAT's the meaning and intent of the paragraph cited above.
> > Even YOU (Forest) had tried, without success, to find something in
> > all the old posts that would compromise my credibility and integrity!
> >
> > The MORE you dig, the MORE you'll find the true characters of IDIOTS
> > like you, Ron Lee, and those whom I have called idiots.
>
> ahahahahhaha, again, aghahahhaaa
chilli, you were ALREADY a certified IDIOT before now. No need to
learn from a NEW IDIOT just to reaffirm your own status.
ROTFLMAO!
>
>
> > That's the way it had been since 1988 (in the scuba forums). That's
> > the way it is, and will be.
> > In the final analysis, just the fact that you couldn't stay within
> > the realm of SCUBA DISCUSSION and the issues within it, and have
> > to resort to gratuitous postings on matters completely UNRELATED
> > to this newsgroup, shows how intellectually and ethically bankrupt
> > you are!
>
> Ya mean like how you always bring up Scuba L and all those other sites. Is
> that the sort of thing you are referring to here?
I was in rec.scuba AND Scuba-L even before 1990. The FORMER regulars
of Scuba-L (except Hugh) who are knowlegeable ABOUT all aspects of
scuba are/were in Scuba-SE. In three years, the number of posts in
Scuba-SE far exceeded the number of posts since 1988 in scuba-L.
To BOTH the former members of Scuba-L and present members of Scuba-SE,
rec.scuba is not worth their time BECAUSE of the noise by IDIOTS like
yourself and the others!
THe cited paragraph referred to posters like YOU in rec.scuba.locations
and rec.scuba, and to you, Forest Aten, Ron Lee, in particular, in
this thread. Need I diagram it for you? <;0/
Stop being an officious gnat -- which is ALL you've shown in ALL the
postings I've read by you.
Safe this LONG post as my souvenir to you -- to guide you in your
future postings and to help you reformulate YOUR attitude as a
teacher and educator, for the betterment of both yourself AND your
future students.
Study this post about Education carefully as your Homework. I will
not give you an exam on it, because I am pretty sure what your grade
would be, but I would be glad for you should you pass with flying
colors.
That's the way it is!
-- Bob.
Reef Fish
Glad you found it. What has THAT got to do with my SCUBA postings?
That article was written by a student in the weekly Newspaper back in
the late 1990s. The writer chose to interview me because I was the
most vocal of all professors against such "student abuse" and I could
speak out without any fear of any of the administrators.
The report was an ACCURATE, FAIR,and INFORMATIVE one!!!!
Hugh, your unethical and gratuitous act of digging up something you
THOUGHT was dirt that would embarrasse me (in view of your self-
admitted GRUDGE against me) in a matter that is entirely
irrelevant to my rec.scuba postings, turned out to be my BEST
REBUTTAL -- which I knew was there, but didn't bother to give
details because they were as inappropriate as Hugh and Forest
bring it up in the first place.
Thanks Hugh, for shooting your own foot, and EXPOSED yourself
once more, for being a SUPREME HYPOCRITE.
Check the http://groups.google.com 'advanced groups search'
section, and search using keywords "supreme hypocrite" under
rec.scuba to read about Hugh and other supreme hypocrites in
these newsgroups.
I have nothing to be ashamed of, either in what I said there (about
the students and webmaster Brian Bunton, who CHEATED by discarding a
strongly favorable review, assuming I would stoop so low (as some
other faculty members might) as to submit a fake review on behalf of
myself).
Brian Bunton had no comment for the interview because he was caught
RED HANDED, by me, who learned by chance from what one of many
graduate student who said about submitting a comment on that "Rate
Your Professor" page, and I didn't see it.
Upon my questioning, Bunton ADMITTED to me that he discarded it!
Of course he had no comment for that article.
Now Hugh, what was it that prompted you to try to discredit my
professional career because I rebutted ALL your silly claims in this
rec.scuba.locations posts?
I posted under Reef Fish (Large_Nassau_Grouper).
Anyone can find THOUSANDS of my SCUBA posts by simply going to the
same google search and use only "reef fish" as the author.
If anyone wants to see WHAT I've posted under ANY scuba topic, or
whether I posted ANY on any selected topic, the simplest first
cut would be going to the archives, and specify ONLY
Find messages with all the words: "keyword"
Author: reef fish
where "keyword" could be a single word, multiple words or any phrase,
such as "supreme hypocrite", "Nassau shark diving", "tahiti", "Cayman
Aggressor", or anything of SCUBA substance and you are welcome to
challenge any of them as uninformative or inaccurate!
Digging up impertinent alleged DIRT outside of scuba discussion and
my posting source is the work of only the lowest form of Bottom
Dwellers, the SCUM of the earth!
Get over your GRUDGE, Hugh, and move on! For your OWN good.
If the readers start learning how to retrieve posts from the
rec.scuba archives, they'll just find more and more of your own
shameful past, not mine! Including your roll in the Scuba-L
massacre with your pal Nick Simicich, which left you ALONE there.
-- Bob.
Reef Fish
> "Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8fb7380b.04010...@posting.google.com...
> > "William Rampartson" <no...@m.com> wrote in message
> news:<_4kKb.90$An4....@news.uswest.net>...
> > > "Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:8fb7380b.04010...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > > Do you know that a nautical mile is a MILE?
> > >
> > > I've been reading this stuff with some interest...so I'll bite: Why is a
> > > Nautical Mile a MILE?
> >
> > You mean you're so stuck in the imperial system of measure and the
> > statue mile (1760 YARDS or 5280 FEET <as in foot in some poster's
> > mouth :-)> ) that you neglected that there is something called the
> > metric system? For an explanation of the nautical mile, see, e.g.:
> >
> > http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/miles.htm
> >
> >
> > > And if that indeed is the case, why is one knot per
> > > hour of travel faster than one mile per hour of travel.
> >
> > That's because one knot (NOT 'knot per hour') is one nautical mile
> > per hour, and since one nautical mile is equal to 1.150779 miles
> > that's why one knot is faster than 1 mph. For the knotty
> > problem of conversion between nautical miles and statue miles, see:
> >
> > http://www.altavista.com/web/results?q=convert+1+Nautical%20Mile
>
> I'll ask again...and since I am not attacking you so please skip the
> hysterics this time. There is nothing to be afraid of.
Where's the "hysterics" above? I answered you squarely and furnished
you ALL the answers you sought.
>
> 1) The difference between the Statute Mile and Nautical Mile has nothing to
> do with the difference between the Metric and Imperial systems of
> measurement as you imply above.
Do you mean to say that BOTH the webpages I gave were wrong in their
assertions? I didn't imply. I said so, because there are dozens of
webpages that would say the same.
> A Metric Mile only exists if you happen to
> run track and even then is informal and still not equal to a Nautical Mile.
I got it. You only have a newsreader. You don't have a browser for
any webpage reference -- is that it?
Who said anything about a Nautical Mile "equal to" a mile (imperial)?
One of the webpages stated clearly that 1 nautical mile is
1.150779 miles (mi)
They have NOTHING to do with your track running. What about swimming
events? Is 1760 yards and 1600 meters not events in statue mile and
metric mile? Neither of them is a Nautical Mile.
> So being "stuck", as you put it, in the Imperial System, is precisely the
> point from which to ask you these questions, since "Mile" exists in two
> forms only, Statute and Nautical.
Sorry, you're wrong AGAIN.
For someone who would use the term "knot per hour" (which I didn't even
make any deserved sarcastic remark then), you sure are full of it.
>
> 2) "knot" refers to both the linear distance of a nautical mile as well as
> the speed of 1 nautical mile per hour.
Correct, as *I* corrected you: NOT 1 knot per hour as YOU had said:
WR> why is one knot per hour or travel faster than one mile per hour
> But back to the point though.........
> In the context of your conversation with Hugh and Forest, and with complete
> disregard for the non sequiturs you offer above, when is a Nautical Mile a
> Mile?
When the "subject or term (noun)" is Mile, and Nautical is the adjective.
THAT's why it's a mile, one of several DIFFERENT slightly definitions
of a MILE.
> And if a Nautical Mile is the same thing as a Mile,
See the above.
Are you having difficulty with the English language also?
You can keep asking, with YOUR non sequitur remarks based on YOUR
inability to read, your error in assertions about "knot", "mile", and
the rest of your erroneus statememnts, but the answers were ALL in
my initial reply to you.
Pity you couldn't take a straight, informative reply in a manner you
SHOULD have, rather than coming back with your gratuitous follow-up.
You got MORE than what you paid for, Mr. Ramparston. There will be no
further reply to ANY of your follow-up on this subject. Go learn your
facts from plenty of publicly available sources.
-- Bob.
chilly
"Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message >
"Always"? that's quite damning, Bob.
>read OUT OF CONTEXT of any thread to jump
> in to make your own noise. Trust me, it was NO HUMOR, on the part of
> Hugh Huntzinger AND Forest Aten. It was exactly what I said it was.
Alrighty, if you say so.
(snip)> courses LOVES his story telling, was taught practically nothing, and
> learned nothing!
> That's the downside of "Rate Your Professor" at 3rd-rate universities!
Um, as opposed to rate your Professor at Clemson?
> "Rate Your Professor" works well at Top and prestigeous universities,
> such as the Grad School of Business of the U of Chicago and Harvard
> (both of which I taught as professor) where the STUDENTS are smart,
> mature, and didn't mind hard work to learn and get good grades, and
> are responsible enough to blame the bad grades on themselves.
OK, help me out here with my comprehension problem. You were against the
Clemson ratings, because your students are smart, mature and didn't mind
hard work to learn and get good grades and were responsible enough to blame
the bad grades on themselves?
(snip diatribe on ethnicity problems or lack thereof)
> Excuses, euphamisms, and self-deceit: these are the forte of
> the average American student. That's why they rank far below
> than the students in even third world countries in some areas.
Well, we are a bit off topic now I'd say but that's OK. I'll comment. It's
the way kids are being raised today, it's the liberal left.
> The very students who are illiterate can be found throughout the
> 2nd, 3rd, and lower rate universities in the USA, especially among
> the atheletes. :-) "How do you spell 'mom'?" was a joke being
> circulated about a top basketball player asking his roommate in a
> "first tier" major university that will remain nameless here.
And if it was a joke, that shall remain nameless, it must then necessarily
be a truth.
(snip)
> > I don't compromise my standards when reviewing my student
> > reveiws either.
>
> You compromised! As described by yourself:
>
> > If they merely trashed everything,
> > then I consider the source. Was it a bad student?. Did the student
have an
> > attitude or learning problem? If so, then I will discount that
student's
> > review. But I do not fear it.
>
> You compromised!
No, I didn't. They produce the work, they write the exams, or they fail.
That's it, those are the rules from day one. If as we go along, I see a
student faltering, then I will have a talk with them. I will suggest that
they need to pull up their socks. I ask if they are having trouble with any
of the material or concepts. If they say they are, then I try to point them
in the direction to find other sources to support what they are learning. I
point out that they will need to make extra effort. I will also give anyone
that asks some extra time, on occasion if it seems prudent to do so. I do
not give away this extra to the detriment of the other students. It is not
my job to coddle one student that is having difficulty at the expense of
another student that is putting in the work. However, not everyone learns
the same way and sometimes it is to my classes overall benefit, that I don't
spend valuable class time expressing a concept in numerous different ways to
ensure that one or two of the students also grasp it. From time to time, a
little one on one work after class is all that is required to assist them.
Unlike you, I don't have any graduate students to sluff that job off too and
so, take it onto myself. After all, I am the instructor, it is my course
and my materials. I want the students to learn, most especially since most
of what I'm attempting to teach them, is a certain way to think and analyze
matters.
>If they trashed everything, they should FLUNK!
If they trashed the course and/or the way it was delivered, it was too late
for them to flunk. They'd failed or they had not, by the time the reviews
come out. The reviews are used as a tool to improve the course, should
something come to light. The reviews are to help future students, assuming
an instructor choses to make adjustments to delivery or changes to course
materials. The reviews are helpful to the college to determine if the
instructor is good for the college. The reviews can be helpful to the
instructor to determe whether or not, the instructor is accomplishing what
the instructor intends to accomplish.
If I get *one* review trashing the course and/or my delivery of information
and it was from a poor student that had evidenced poor performance and/or
attitude throughout the course, then I take that into consideration when
determining the worth of that bad review. If the majority of the reviews
for that same course period were good, then that helps in the determination.
If some of the free comments are similar, then those are comments that I may
take into consideration. Whether I do or not, remains up to me.
> If the students have "learning disability" or ADS, they should attend
> special schools that accommodate these special needs.
I've never had a learning disabled student in any of my classes, to my
knowledge. I've never had any one claim ADS. I've certainly had some that
were brighter than others. I've had some incapable of doing the work
because they didn't have the prerequisites. Those without the prerequisites
are let out of the class within days. Some were incapable of doing the work
because they were incompetent or lazy. They managed to remove themselves
and therefore, elected to take an incomplete.
>
> In order to receive federal aids, Clemson had to waste the money
> establishing a special office to help accommodate those students.
> I remember vividly the "official note" those know-nothing employees
> sent to all professor: that they should TAKE NOTES for the students
> (no joke), give them extra time on all exams, etc., etc.
My students are aware that they will recieve some class materials. And that
they are responsible for taking all notes themselves and if they miss a
class, they should arrange for someone else to take notes and pickup their
class assignments, both those requiring to be done and those that have
already been completed and marked. I'm not their babysitter or their momma,
I'm their instructor. They are adults, if they chose not to attend or are
unable to attend, then it is their responsibility to get the work done
anyway, not mine.
>
> It was so absurdly ridiculous that I refused to abide by them, and
> let it be known to ALL higher up administrators that under NO
> circumstances would I "take special notes" for those students. They
> either perform or they FLUNK. In a couple of exceptions, I did
> allow the students "extra time" on exams (which other students
> complain legitimately that it gave them unfair advantage). I DID
> take the pre-planned "controlled experiment" to make them write
> what they wrote during the "extra time" in a different color PEN
> or pencil, so that we can ALL tell whether it was a case of
> insufficient TIME or insufficient knowledge.
The only time that I have ever let a student write an exam late was in the
event that a close family member had died suddenly. In that case, the
student was not able to bring herself out of her grief to write the late
exam. It was a shame really, inasmuch as, she was a very good student and
would likely have received very good marks. Still, since she didn't
complete the course, she failed.
>
> Needless to say, they produced NOTHING in the extra time beyond
> what they had plenty of time to do within the regular hour. They
> FLUNKED. They were among those who bad mouth me in "Rate Your
> Professor".
>
> As time went on, students caught on too. The special office was
> LINED with hundreds of students who FAKED learning disabilities to
> get the unfair advantage. OTHER STUDENTS were the ones who
> complained about them. In time, both students AND administrators
> knew not to enroll in my classes.
>
> I am just as hard nose about my PRINCIPLES as I am hard nosed here
> about IDIOTS who pose idiotic posts. In the former case, I was and
> am an EDUCATOR. I never ran any office based on popularity. I
> was EXTREMELY popular among the "genuine" and "good" students who
> appreciate good teaching methods and good substance to have became
> Deans, Department Chair, and top level researchers TODAY.
Good for you, Bob.
> Ron Lee will probably post some impertinence about being nauseated
> if he reads this far.
Like me and many others, he probably doesn't often read this far into your
diatribes.
> He is an IDIOT, the product of the worst
> education in the United States of America. He obviously has a
> learning disability because he hasn't learned a damned thing in all
> these years in rec.scuba.
Since you seem to think that he should have been learning from you, I'll
hypothesise that you mustn't be as good an instructor as you believe
yourself to be.
>He makes the same idiotic remarks
> without any substance in any thread of discussion as he had been
> doing for years.
LOL, unlike yourself. ahahahahahahhaa
The SLOWEST LEARNER in the rec.scuba hierarchy. ;-)
>
> A university is an educational institution of HIGHER LEARNING. It's
> not your pre-kindergarten or grade school. The professor does the
> BEST possible for the students -- it's up to THEM to sink or swim.
There ya go. That's my premise exactly.
> Anything else such as what you said you do is COMPROMISING.
There ya go. Since we agree, why were you accusing me of compromising?
> > Well, I also go out of my way to make every effort that my students
don't
> > end up with Fs. If I see someone falling along the way, I have a
discussion
> > with them. I offer them my support. I ask what they need. If it is
within
> > reason and within my abilitiy, then I will provide it. After all, my
work
> > as an instructor, is to instruct. I have no desire to see any of my
> > students fail. I'm on their side.
>
> Excuses, excuses. That's exactly the problem with teachers like you
> who DON'T hold standards, and make all kinds of excuses NOT to fail
> them. You are doing the students no service. You are doing your job
> as an instructor a great DISSERVICE.
We disagree. See further above in this note for a more full explanation.
But please do note, that in my prior note I used the phrase "within reason".
> How many students do you have in your class? 20? 30? In prestigeous
> universities there are classes of size 500! The professors lecture.
> Graduate students help grade papers and hold hands like you do. But
> NOBODY gets exempt from an "F" for telling sad stories for their
> inability to pass the same exam as everyone else.
My class sizes are smaller than yours it is true, but I mark all my own
papers and exams and don't have any grad students to help. I don't hold
their hands, I instruct. I teach. I am an instructor. I am a teacher. I
am there to help the students to learn. Perhaps that is not why professors
are there.
> > > If you want to dig some dirt on me that's RELEVANT to any of the
> > > scuba discussion forums,
> >
> > They don't need to dig anywhere. You are always right here amusing the
heck
> > out of us.
>
> Sure, that's what ALL the IDIOTS say: many of them are out there in
> THIS very thread: Ron Lee, you, O'Dork, and the rest. Forest Aten
> is too new to know that he is among the KNOWN IDIOTS.
>
> Birds of the same feature flock together!
Well, you are often here. So I guess you are part of the flock.
>
> I know the SILENT MAJORITY here better than any of you do. They read
> my posts for INFORMATION, stay out of the way on NOISE follow-ups
> generated by IDIOTS. Many of them made the same mistakes as you all
> made. They are just much smarter LEARNERS.
LOL, and do you think they are reading this post of yours for INFORMATION?
Or any of the last number of your posts in this thread? If you believe
that, you are more deluded than even I had imagined.
> >
> > <why don't you comb the archives and see what
> > > you can find? There must be easily over 10,000 posts -- most of
> > > them retrievable by groups.google.com, and almost as many in LISTS
> > > that are not archived by google.
> >
> > Prodigious posting doesn't necessarily equait to a body of work that's
of
> > any relevance to this discussion either.
>
> It's for the READERS to decide its relevance and information content.
Quite right, quite right. Couldn't agree more.
>
> My point there is why would anyone NEED to go outside rec.scuba.* if
> they are trying to discredit me! Why drag my university career and
> professorship into their cesspool?
>
> THAT's the meaning and intent of the paragraph cited above.
OK. Sure, I'll buy that. Why do you need to go outside of rec.scuba to
discredit your discreditors? You do that all the time. Even while patting
yourself on the back and saying that you deal with each post on it's own
merit and do not hold grudges.
>
> > > Even YOU (Forest) had tried, without success, to find something in
> > > all the old posts that would compromise my credibility and integrity!
> > >
> > > The MORE you dig, the MORE you'll find the true characters of IDIOTS
> > > like you, Ron Lee, and those whom I have called idiots.
> >
> > ahahahahhaha, again, aghahahhaaa
>
> chilli, you were ALREADY a certified IDIOT before now. No need to
> learn from a NEW IDIOT just to reaffirm your own status.
>
> ROTFLMAO!
ROTFLMAO too.
I had no need to learn anything of that nature from Ron Lee or HH. Your
posts stand on their own merit. Each one a work of art.
> > > That's the way it had been since 1988 (in the scuba forums). That's
> > > the way it is, and will be.
>
>
> > > In the final analysis, just the fact that you couldn't stay within
> > > the realm of SCUBA DISCUSSION and the issues within it, and have
> > > to resort to gratuitous postings on matters completely UNRELATED
> > > to this newsgroup, shows how intellectually and ethically bankrupt
> > > you are!
> >
> > Ya mean like how you always bring up Scuba L and all those other sites.
Is
> > that the sort of thing you are referring to here?
>
> I was in rec.scuba AND Scuba-L even before 1990. The FORMER regulars
> of Scuba-L (except Hugh) who are knowlegeable ABOUT all aspects of
> scuba are/were in Scuba-SE. In three years, the number of posts in
> Scuba-SE far exceeded the number of posts since 1988 in scuba-L.
>
> To BOTH the former members of Scuba-L and present members of Scuba-SE,
> rec.scuba is not worth their time BECAUSE of the noise by IDIOTS like
> yourself and the others!
But Bob, why wouldn't they want to be here because of you!! You'd think
that they would have learned enough from you that they could see what is not
worth their time.
>
> THe cited paragraph referred to posters like YOU in rec.scuba.locations
> and rec.scuba, and to you, Forest Aten, Ron Lee, in particular, in
> this thread. Need I diagram it for you? <;0/
Um like this one @@^p
>
> Stop being an officious gnat -- which is ALL you've shown in ALL the
> postings I've read by you.
ahahahahahahaha, stop it yer killin me here.
Safe this LONG post as my souvenir to you -- to guide you in your
> future postings and to help you reformulate YOUR attitude as a
> teacher and educator, for the betterment of both yourself AND your
> future students.
Bob, there is nothing that you will be able to guide me in, neither as a
poster nor as an educator. But then don't let that worry you overly much,
after all, in your opinion, I'm an idiot. Therefore, it shouldn't bother
you at all.
OK, gotta run now. I've got a class tonight and I need to prepare.
>
(snip)
William Rampartson
further erroneous assertions below without having to do it next time you
post and next time you post and...............
> > 1) The difference between the Statute Mile and Nautical Mile has nothing
to
> > do with the difference between the Metric and Imperial systems of
> > measurement as you imply above.
>
> Do you mean to say that BOTH the webpages I gave were wrong in their
> assertions?
Yes, both pages are wrong if they indeed agree with your claim......but they
don't (because a Nautical Mile is not a Metric measure). As I said before it
would be helpful if you read your own cites.
> I got it. You only have a newsreader. You don't have a browser for
> any webpage reference -- is that it?
Matters not whether I have a browser. There is no formal Metric Mile Bob.
They got Kilometers, but no miles. The only metric mile anywhere is on a
track and it is informal and not a component of the metric system.
> Who said anything about a Nautical Mile "equal to" a mile (imperial)?
You did. But you can't argue that anymore because you are not going to reply
to this post in ANY measure by any means.
> One of the webpages stated clearly that 1 nautical mile is
> 1.150779 miles (mi)
We know Bob, which is why, before you posted the useless URL's, you were
asked to confirm how a Nautical Mile is equal to a Mile.
> They have NOTHING to do with your track running. What about swimming
> events? Is 1760 yards and 1600 meters not events in statue mile and
> metric mile?
No, they aren't. In fact neither are events at all. And that's why they
aren't really miles...Nautical, Metric or Statute. And once again Bob, the
Metric Mile doesn't exist and a Nautical Mile is not a Metric System
distance.
Read your own cite http://www.thetipsbank.com/convert.htm see anything there
under Meters that indicates a Mile...Nautical or otherwise?
Now go look at any psych or seed sheet for a swimming event......see anythin
g in a 1600 meter or 1760 yard distance? Didn't think so.
> > So being "stuck", as you put it, in the Imperial System, is precisely
the
> > point from which to ask you these questions, since "Mile" exists in two
> > forms only, Statute and Nautical.
>
> Sorry, you're wrong AGAIN.
I haven't been wrong once. And you can insist from now 'til the day you lose
weight that the Metric System has something called a Mile, but you'd still
be incorrect.
> For someone who would use the term "knot per hour" (which I didn't even
> make any deserved sarcastic remark then), you sure are full of it.
> >
> > 2) "knot" refers to both the linear distance of a nautical mile as well
as
> > the speed of 1 nautical mile per hour.
>
> Correct, as *I* corrected you: NOT 1 knot per hour as YOU had said:
Geez, Bob if it's correct that "knot" refers to both distance and speed,
collectively and separately....then my statement can't be wrong.
And as much as I enjoy being corrected as a function of learning, you
haven't had a sniff at it yet.
> When the "subject or term (noun)" is Mile, and Nautical is the adjective.
> THAT's why it's a mile, one of several DIFFERENT slightly definitions
> of a MILE.
Nope..a Mile is 5,280 feet and a Nautical Mile is 6,076 feet. Convert it
anyway you want but a Nautical Mile is not a Mile and a Nautical Mile is not
a Metric System distance. And you know it.
> > And if a Nautical Mile is the same thing as a Mile,
>
> See the above.
Sorry Bob, the extrapolation doesn't work. Just because a Nautical Mile is a
*mile described* it isn't conversely correct that a Nautical Mile is equal
to
a Mile.
> Are you having difficulty with the English language also?
Not to the extent it has you baffled.
> You got MORE than what you paid for, Mr. Ramparston. There will be no
> further reply to ANY of your follow-up on this subject.
Good, at least we can be certain that the final words posted on this subject
are correct. For a while there I thought you were going to tire me out with
your incessant blathering and I would, thru sheer frustration, be inclined
to quit the thread and allow your inaccurate and erroneous comments to
stand as fact. In the interest of truth it's a good thing you are a sore
loser.
William Rampartson
"Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> Do you mean to say that BOTH the webpages I gave were wrong in their
> assertions?
A HA HA hah ha ha let's look at ( http://www.thetipsbank.com/convert.htm ):
Here is their idea of how to convert Fahrenheit to Centigrade:
"F to C - Multiply by 9, Divide by 5, Add 32"
We will try this using boiling point. Hopefully you agree 212F is the
Fahrenheit boiling point.
So..lets see 212F x 9 = 1908F/5= 381.6F + 32= 413.6C
413.6 C !! And here I was taught 100C was boiling point. Maybe
413.6 is the Nautical boiling point..huh Bob. Ya think maybe they got their
matrix crossed on that one?
There's more, but this is the most obvious example of how your web page
cites can be stupidly wrong because of careless error.
> I didn't imply. I said so, because there are dozens of
> webpages that would say the same.
I sincerely doubt you can find dozens of web pages that have made the same
mistakes! The again, maybe all you do is cite error ridden webpages and do
indeed have dozens equally inaccurate.
Go ahead, keep betting your marbles on webpages Bob. It makes you look so
scholarly and professional.
Randy Buckner
"chilly" <sla...@shaw.canada> wrote in message
>
> "Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message >
> > That's why I said you always
>
> "Always"? that's quite damning, Bob.
>
>But then don't let that worry you overly much,
> after all, in your opinion, I'm an idiot. Therefore, it shouldn't bother
> you at all.
I guess you been told, little missy!....... }:^)>
Buck
"There is one great thing you men will all be able to say when you go home.
You
may thank God for it. Thank God, that at least, thirty years from now, when
you
are sitting around the fireside with your grandson on your knees, and he
asks
you what you did in the Great War, you won't have to cough and say, "I
shoveled
shit in Louisiana."
General George S Patton
Lee Bell
> Bob Ling wrote
> >Even YOU (Forest) had tried, without success, to find something in
> >all the old posts that would compromise my credibility and integrity!
>
> Credibility is enhanced by name calling? Seems odd to me.
Ron, it's difficult to compromise the credibility or integrity of somebody
that has neither.
Lee
Forest Aten
Huge rant by Bob snipped:
< >
Wow.....
Bob,
You have such contempt for your profession.
After reading your views on education (Very distorted Bob) Most of the
educators I know are professionals. Their positive, constructive and
professional behavior, both in school and in the community, is reflective of
this fact. I think you've been listening to and or reading the politicians
and administrators from the right way too long.
In a separate post you wrote back to Mr. Ramparston; after a good deal of
ridicule (little substance):
"You got MORE than what you paid for, Mr. Ramparston. There will be no
further reply to ANY of your follow-up on this subject. Go learn your facts
from plenty of publicly available sources."
Is this representative of the way you "taught" at Clemson? And if so...I
guess then came the grade? IF you graded like you name call...I can see why
you might not have received very good marks on a "Rate the Professor" web
site.
You have/had such contempt for students.
Is this how you viewed your students in your classes at Clemson? (in your
words): "Excuses, eupha(sp)misms, and self-deceit: these are the forte of
the average American student." Were these students treated with the same
contempt and ridicule as Mr. Ramparston faced (and with which you have so
stated, in general, for "average American students" in your post to Chilly)?
You have such contempt for the school that employed you for years.
You say: "That's the downside of "Rate Your Professor" at 3rd-rate
universities!"
Are you implying that Clemson is 3rd rate?
Or.....is it because students at Clemson had a "Rate Your Professor"
program......that panned you? Did the Clemson "Rate" program give you a bad
rating? I don't know...just asking.....
You say: "Rate Your Professor" works well at Top and prestige(sp) ous
universities, such as the Grad School of Business of the U of Chicago and
Harvard (both of which I taught as professor) where the STUDENTS are smart,
mature, and didn't mind hard work to learn and get good grades, and are
responsible enough to blame the bad grades on themselves".
Why did you leave the teaching positions at these "Top and prestige(sp)ous"
universities?
Do you have definitive statistical work that corroborates your claim about
WHERE "Rate" programs work better? If so...I'd like a copy for review.
Probably better from an objective third party Bob.....not that I don't trust
you.....
You have such contempt for everyone. (well...you do reward a few people by
offering 'qualified' condescending remarks)
Knowing things about you, help all of us in the newsgroup size up the value
of your contributions. You constantly offer up the information about your
professional career in an effort to lend credibility to your posts. It would
be my guess that anyone out on the newsgroup would have your blessing
(right?) when it comes to finding out about you and your stated credentials.
Forest Aten
Forest Aten
"Ya think maybe they got their matrix crossed on that one?"
>
Bill,
Did you get permission to use the word "matrix"? That word might be reserved
for exclusive use.....by.....well you know; for those with degrees/pedigrees
in statistics. :-)
You may not completely understand how to use (twist/spin/manipulate/etc.)
the word. Or even worse, misuse the word in context....or out of
context....or CAPITALIZE it often enough.
I would recommend asking for Bob Ling's permission to use any of the
"special" words. ;-)
Forest Aten
P.S. I would also advise that you stay completely away from descriptive
adjectives. You might give people the impression that there might be more
than one kind of "mile".
example: long mile; short mile, inbetweena mile, kindofa mile, maybea mile,
almosta mile, etc.
A mile is a mile...right? Why confuse people with details???
Reef Fish
Lee must have taken to heart on what the most respected member of
Scuba-SE said of him when he did his usual "delusional nonsense"
about MY post. There was NO response from Lee:
#> Instead of boring the rest of us with the same old delusional
#> nonsense that brought down Suba-L - and is rapidly doing the same
#> with this list - why not just reserve it for your like-minded
#> cronies?
Lee definitely found his like-minded cronies in THIS thread in
rec.scuba.locations!
-- Bob.
Reef Fish
> Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com (Reef Fish) wrote:
> >
> > No information was ignored. You request for clarification WAS
> > clarified.
>
> It took two requests before you responded, hence the statement.
>
> Cite: my original clarification request was in my 12/28/03 08:44 post,
> and your direct response to it was your 12/28/03 17:49 post.
And I had explained on 12/29 WHY I didn't respond because it was
such an obvious MISREADING on your part. That was when I responded
in detail when you persisted, oblivious of your own errors and
assumptions because of your MIS-READ. Obfuscation gets you NOWHERE.
> If you can find just which part of your text in your above post clearly
> and directly addressed the clarification request, I'll apologize. But
> if its not present there, then an apology from you to me is in order.
The post of 12/29 explained it wasn't THERE (12/28) and why it was
HERE (12/29), in the post in 12/29:
Date: 2003-12-29 20:23:24 PST
RF> That was why I posted the depths of those few spots most relevant to
RF> the Las Palmas reef and wall.
>
hh> Which went unclarified.
RF> That's because you misread what I had written and made the grossly
RF> erroneous assumption as you did (and now) that the readings were
RF> "perpendicular" to the shore.
Now go read the clarification on 12/29/2003.
> > Get over your GRUDGE, Hugh.
>
> Like How? Virtually every time I try to have a civilized conversation
> with you, you inevitably revive and instigate. Let the past go already.
I let it go LONG ago. You kept coming back with clear indication that
it was all the result of your GRUDGE. Just look at all your false
accusations. That's very UNcivilized.
>
>
> You can choose whichever definition set you want. So can I. Move on.
>
>
>
> -hh
I had said the very same thing until you pop in again, NOT moving on.
-- Bob.
chilly
"Randy Buckner" <Randyb...@att.net> wrote in message
news:4EGKb.743$Ub6....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> I guess you been told, little missy!....... }:^)>
ahahahahahaa
I've been called worse, by many better. And they were also wrong, of
course.
Reef Fish
> Huge rant by Bob snipped:
> < >
> Wow.....
>
> Bob,
>
> You have such contempt for your profession.
No, the contempt was on some SEGMENT of of the USA educational
system; and the real contempt was on people like YOU for the
obvious reasons.
You still haven't stated the universities in Texas you said you
taught! Still ashamed of them?
> You say: "Rate Your Professor" works well at Top and prestige(sp) ous
> universities, such as the Grad School of Business of the U of Chicago and
> Harvard (both of which I taught as professor) where the STUDENTS are smart,
> mature, and didn't mind hard work to learn and get good grades, and are
> responsible enough to blame the bad grades on themselves".
> Why did you leave the teaching positions at these "Top and prestige(sp)ous"
> universities?
Because I was teaching there on my Sabbatical Leave, getting a breath
of fresh air, from tree-stumps like yourself.
> You have such contempt for everyone.
Wrong again! Contempt for everyone of YOUR ilk. Contempt for the
administrators who call themselves "educators" but doesn't know the
first thing about what education is all about.
I also have plenty of contempt for mouthing idiots like you and Ron
Lee, to name just two. You have a handful of company in this
thread though. What a party! :-) The Re-Union of the Mental
Midgets of rec.scuba.*
-- Bob.
Reef Fish
>
> > "Rate Your Professor" works well at Top and prestigeous universities,
> > such as the Grad School of Business of the U of Chicago and Harvard
> > (both of which I taught as professor) where the STUDENTS are smart,
> > mature, and didn't mind hard work to learn and get good grades, and
> > are responsible enough to blame the bad grades on themselves.
>
> OK, help me out here with my comprehension problem.
You're beyond help in your reading comprehension. Can't you see
I was citing Harvard and UC as examples of schools where "Rate
Your Professor" works?
>> (snip)
> > I am just as hard nose about my PRINCIPLES as I am hard nosed here
> > about IDIOTS who pose idiotic posts. In the former case, I was and
> > am an EDUCATOR. I never ran any office based on popularity. I
> > was EXTREMELY popular among the "genuine" and "good" students who
> > appreciate good teaching methods and good substance to have became
> > Deans, Department Chair, and top level researchers TODAY.
>
> Good for you, Bob.
If meant it, you could have fooled me on what you have written, which
was diametrically opposed to what I believe.
> > A university is an educational institution of HIGHER LEARNING. It's
> > not your pre-kindergarten or grade school. The professor does the
> > BEST possible for the students -- it's up to THEM to sink or swim.
>
> There ya go. That's my premise exactly.
You could have fooled me, based on what you wrote!
> > Birds of the same feature flock together!
>
> Well, you are often here. So I guess you are part of the flock.
If you can't tell the flock from the bird shooter with a bee-bee gun,
they you are in worse shape that I thought! ;-)
> > I was in rec.scuba AND Scuba-L even before 1990. The FORMER regulars
> > of Scuba-L (except Hugh) who are knowlegeable ABOUT all aspects of
> > scuba are/were in Scuba-SE. In three years, the number of posts in
> > Scuba-SE far exceeded the number of posts since 1988 in scuba-L.
> >
> > To BOTH the former members of Scuba-L and present members of Scuba-SE,
> > rec.scuba is not worth their time BECAUSE of the noise by IDIOTS like
> > yourself and the others!
>
> But Bob, why wouldn't they want to be here because of you!!
They don't have to follow me. We discuss scuba matters as equals,
each understands what the other says, and KNOWS that the other knows
what they are saying. That's what a "discussion" is about.
Only IDIOTS follow me -- for their IDIOTIC reasons -- as you and all
the other idiots stated -- for your own idiotic pleasure of making
NOISES to try to aggravate me.
In the end, you all LOSE.
> > Stop being an officious gnat -- which is ALL you've shown in ALL the
> > postings I've read by you.
>
> ahahahahahahaha, stop it yer killin me here.
See what I said immediately preceding the cited paragraph above?
> OK, gotta run now. I've got a class tonight and I need to prepare.
>
> (snip)
Yawn! :-( )
-- Bob.
chilly
"Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > (snip)
>
> Yawn! :-( )
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Ron Lee
childish, name calling moniker from you. I grow tired if IDIOT which
you have used for too many years.
I need a change of pace please. Thanks for your support in this
matter of most urgent import.
Ron Lee
Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com (Reef Fish) wrote:
>
>Thanks Hugh, for shooting your own foot, and EXPOSED yourself
>once more, for being a SUPREME HYPOCRITE.
>
>-- Bob.
Ron Lee
>Lee definitely found his like-minded cronies in THIS thread in
>rec.scuba.locations!
>
>-- Bob.
Actually Bob over many years of reading Lee's posts he is among the
most helpful people in the internet scuba community.
Ron Lee
Lee Bell
Not to worry, Ron. He's right. I did find like minded cronies in this
thread. Only Bob thinks that's a bad thing.
Lee
H. Huntzinger
> " H. Huntzinger" wrote:
> > Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com (Reef Fish) wrote:
> > >
> > > No information was ignored. You request for clarification WAS
> > > clarified.
> >
> > It took two requests before you responded, hence the statement.
> >
> > Cite: my original clarification request was in my 12/28/03 08:44 post,
> > and your direct response to it was your 12/28/03 17:49 post.
>
> And I had explained on 12/29 WHY I didn't respond because it was
> such an obvious MISREADING on your part.
What a wonderfully lame attempt at revisionist history.
How's it go again? "Dance, Puppet Dance".
Another Hero Worship thread is sure to follow.
-hh
H. Huntzinger
>
> ... The writer chose to interview me because I was the
> most vocal of all professors against such "student abuse"...
What you call "student abuse", others called protected free speech.
A year later on Scuba-L, what others called "abuse", you conveniently
called your protected free speech.
You took vigilante actions that were designed to embarrass, silence and
ultimately censor Phi Sigma Pi's voice.
A year later...and ever since...you whine about how horrible it was to
be censored yourself.
Refusing to have the rules that you choose to apply to others to then
also be equally applied to yourself is a hypocritic self-contradiction.
> I have nothing to be ashamed of...
That's where you are apparently quite different from many other people.
This wasn't an isolated example. You've also previously expressed no
regrets for disclosing trusted private email...that is, until it was
done to you. Then it then became a horrible affrontory and crime.
> Now Hugh, what was it that prompted you to try to discredit my
> professional career ...?
You're retired: whatever professional career you had is over.
The only person who gives you any respect anymore is the kid behind the
counter at McDonald's, because his job requires him to do so.
If you want respect from anyone else, you will have to earn it. To do
that, you'll have to overcome your existing reputation:
"In my opinion, there is one particular person on this forum, who posts
outrageous statements, half truths, and dangerous practices, while
calling them commonly accepted. When called on this stuff, he then
warps all of the facts, backtracks, lies, and pretends to be the
innocent party, while continuing to bait whoever he might be
discussing something with. He also ignores any points made against
him, while accusing the other party of doing the same thing. He is in
the argument not to prove a point, and not to discuss scuba, but
purely for the joy of arguing, purely for the joy of getting his own
way.
He seems to love flaming: He is typically the first to use
personal attack to raise the level of heat, shifting the attack from
the issues being discussed to personalities, typically because he just
doesn't have the technical knowledge to cut it. His usual shift
methodology is to take someone else's comments on his ill-thought-out
ideas and call it a personal attack, and respond as if it were, which
further raises the flame level.
When the level of heat gets to the point where other readers are tired
of it, he then drops into the same tactic:
He will then try to play the injured party, attempting to ally with
anyone who has made a call for sanity in an effort to bring
expressions of public opinion down on his opponents, while continuing
to dig.
I've observed several of these flamefests. I've participated in one
or two. This individual is at the core of all of these flamefests,
always as one of the two or three original arguers, and others are
brought into the argument as the level of heat rises. I reject out
of hand any claim that any other person might be at fault in these
flamefests, as no other person has participated in all of the flaming
threads that this one person has.
The only reason I don't suggest that he simply quit participating
completely is that his travel postings are usually pretty good.
I believe that as a GENERAL PRINCIPLE he should reconsider posting
non-travel related information, questions, comments or claims to this
forum for a period of several months. If we avoid a flamefest (a
disagreement is not a flamefest, I think we all know the difference
here) then this may tend to prove the point.
In other words, "Shut up, Bob." You not posting regarding any
non-travel diving issues would eliminate a larger number of
flamefests than any other GENERAL PRINCIPLE I can think of."
The above was posted April 30th, 1993...yes, nearly a decade ago.
If there is anyone besides Bob who honestly believes that the above
posting was and/or is an entirely inaccurate characterization or summary
description, please speak up in Bob's defense now.
-hh
Reef Fish
> Bob, please add me to your list of SUPREME HYPOCRITEs. I need a new
> childish, name calling moniker from you. I grow tired if IDIOT which
> you have used for too many years.
>
> I need a change of pace please. Thanks for your support in this
> matter of most urgent import.
>
> Ron Lee
But you have ALREADY been certified as a SUPREME HYPOCRITE, for
whining about being called an idiot while you called others idiots.
You are too DUMB to follow my instruction to search the archives
(to search for "supreme hypocrite" where you would have found
company with Hugh Huntzinger and your idol Lee Bell) to find your
own title in a Feb 2003 post, among other google archive finds.
It included these incisive analyses of your posts and character too!
Bob Crownfield in "Rambling Ron's head and butt are interchangeable"
> Have you posted one FACT?
> have you responded reasonably to one question?
> If not, he is right, and you are truly an idiot.
The reason why Ron Lee acts his IDIOTIC way is best explained by
CRW Mike> Ron (Toliet trained by brute force) Lee,
Quote CRW Mike:
In more techinical psychological and sociological terms, Ron Lee
is "anal retentive" in his repetitive and childish use of "jihad"
and "name-calling" when he has nothing to offer in the subject matter
of a newsgroup. But he gets the attention he wanted, just to WHINE
about others calling him an IDIOT.
Ene quote.
-- Bob.
Reef Fish
> "Ron Lee" wrote
>
> > Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com (Reef Fish) wrote:
> >
> > >Lee definitely found his like-minded cronies in THIS thread in
> > >rec.scuba.locations!
> > >
> > >-- Bob.
> >
> > Actually Bob over many years of reading Lee's posts he is among the
> > most helpful people in the internet scuba community.
That's an accurate statement pertaining to MANY of Lee's posts.
As for the remaining posts (excluding the ones in which he posts
erroneous facts and argue incessesantly about them), Lee EARNED
his reputation as a Mouth Dancer and HYPOCRITE SUPREME in his
Mr. Hyde personna.
Lee applied his hedious personna to me countless times. During
my extended absence in Scuba-SE on my dive and world travel, he
tried the SAME approach to SEVERAL of the respected members of
that community, and was told the same thing by them as I had been
saying about Lee's Mr. Hyde personna, except I diagnosed it a
couple of years before they did.
Lee IS personna non-grata (for the language challenged readers --
the "shit list") on that LIST now, from which Ron Lee forgot to
clip this quote, in the context of "like-minded cronies":
#> Instead of boring the rest of us with the same old delusional
#> nonsense that brought down Suba-L - and is rapidly doing the same
#> with this list - why not just reserve it for your like-minded
#> cronies?
> Not to worry, Ron. He's right. I did find like minded cronies in this
> thread. Only Bob thinks that's a bad thing.
>
> Lee
Lessee ... the cronies colonies in this (and related) thread:
SUPREME HYPOCRITES: Hugh Huntzinger, Ron Lee, Lee Bell.
IDIOTS: Ron Lee, chilli, Forest Aten.
Lee can now brag about his badges of honor shared by only a very select
few in ANY newsgroup.
-- Bob.
William Rampartson
> Bill said:
> "Ya think maybe they got their matrix crossed on that one?"
> >
>
>
> Bill,
>
> Did you get permission to use the word "matrix"?
Nope, no permission, I figgered he wouldn't respond to anything that proved
his website references flat stupid and incorrect. Especially since he hangs
almost every claim and assertion on webpages. Ah, the Internet....that
highly respected bastion of infallibility.
> I would recommend asking for Bob Ling's permission to use any of the
> "special" words. ;-)
I can't, "Bling-Bling" doesn't talk to me anymore because I got him sussed.
He's very scholarly, as well as academically disciplined, ya know? He always
confirms and re-confirms his sources. If you can google it, it has to be
accurate....right?
Well, maybe you guys have all had him sussed for some time as well :^)
Eventually I'll hear from him...he'll call me a name. I won't get the high
honor of IDIOT or SUPREME HYPOCRITE since, of course, I have not yet grown
into such entitlement. But some day, some time, Bling-Bling will pop up,
respond to me, and call me a name. It's inevitable. He's "stream of
consciousness". No thought can be left un-uttered. I have faith in him.
I await, for now, because I *will* do better, my low-caste moniker.
> Forest Aten
>
> P.S. I would also advise that you stay completely away from descriptive
> adjectives. You might give people the impression that there might be more
> than one kind of "mile".
> example: long mile; short mile, inbetweena mile, kindofa mile, maybea
mile,
> almosta mile, etc.
I think what we've been getting the last few days is the bobalingamile :^)
Reef Fish
> A year later on Scuba-L, what others called "abuse", you conveniently
> called your protected free speech.
I'll go back to Hugh's post later. But here is THE case in question
that shows clearly Hugh's MISGUIDED notions of "free speech" versus
"censorship".
> A year later...and ever since...you whine about how horrible it was to
> be censored yourself.
Censorship in ANY form is a horrible crime.
Nick censored me in ONE piece of satire against him because he paid
no attention to all the violations of his posted Guidelines.
Hugh endorsed Nick's censorship action. This will set the stage
for my response to Hugh on the notion of "free speech vs censorship".
YOU BE THE JUDGE on this Case Study:
===============================
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 23:25:51 -0400
Sender: Scuba diving discussion list <SCU...@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU>
From: Nick Simicich <n...@SCIFI.SQUAWK.COM>
Now, I go away for a few hours, my laptop dies, and when I finally do
read my mail, I find that things have gone to hell. I'm answering this
from one of my Unix boxes. Since Bob has a history of personal attack
and started his first post here with same, I have put him on preview.
Any further personal attack, by anyone else, will result in the same
treatment.
===============================
THIS was MY post in question (a piece of satire):
Note Simicich's use of "personal attack" to characterize the satire.
The "things have gone to hell" referred to subsequent posts from
OTHER Scuba-L subscribers VIOLATING ALL of Nick Guidelines while mine
violated NONE.
There was no whining on my part. I calmely DOCUMENTED and reported
Nick's ABUSE (and subsequent abuses of barring me from posting while
having discarded ALL my submitted posts for his "preview" before
anyone else <including Brown.edu> could review it) to Brown.edu.
Read about Brown.edu's action on Nick. ;-)
This was my post in its entirety:
================================
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 01:42:52 -0400
On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 08:23:51 -0400, Nick Simicich <n...@SCIFI.SQUAWK.COM> wrote:
>At 11:33 AM 2002-09-04 +0100, Cosma Papouis wrote:
> >>http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1856698190
>Is this the point where I am supposed to ask if the tank certifications are
>the same all over the EC? :-)
Dear Mr. Nick Simicich,
At this point you should perhaps have asked:
Why is it that since August 13, there were exactly 9 postings in Scuba-L?
And why FOUR of those were "For sale" posts by Cosma, violating one or
more of your Posting Guidelines (2 of the 9 posts were your Guidelines),
and 2 replies by you, without your mention of any violation?
GUIDELINE> --ADVERTISING IS NOT ALLOWED. GUIDELINE> An occasional,
non-repetitive ad of personal gear for sale GUIDELINE> is acceptable
but please place "FS" in the subject line.
GUIDELINE> the only acceptable content-transfer-encoding is text/plain.
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:29:34 +0100, Cosma posted:
QXMgZmFyIGFzIEkga25vdy4uLi4uIHllcy4NCg0KCS0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZ
S0tLS0t IA0KCUZyb206IE5pY2sgU2ltaWNpY2ggW21haWx0bzpuanNAU0NJRkkuU1FVQ
VdLLkNPTV0gDQoJ DQoJDQoNCglBdCAxMDoxOCBQTSAyMDAyLTA4LTI2ICswMTAwLCBDb3
NtYSBQYXBvdWlzIHdyb3Rl Og0KCQ0KCT5JIGFtIHNlbGxpbmcgYSB0d2luIHNldC4uLg
0KCT4NCgk+PGh0dHA6Ly9jZ2kuZWJh eS5jby51ay93cy9lQmF5SVNBUEkuZGxsP1ZpZX
dJdGVtJml0ZW09MTg1NDQ0NzUwNT4NCgkNCglM b25kb24gLSBjYW4geW91IG1vdmUgdG
Fua3MgYXJvdW5kIHRoZSBFRUMgLS0gaXMgdGhlIGNlcnRp ZmljYXRpb24gdGhlIHNhbW
UNCglhbGwgb3ZlciBFdXJvcGU/DQoJDQoJDQoNCg==
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:32:42 +0100, Cosma posted:
Tm8sIHlvdSBuZWVkIHRvIGdldCBhIHNldCBvZiBiYW5kcy4gIFVubGVzcyB5b3UgYXJlI
HBsYW5u aW5nIG9uIHVzaW5nIHRoZSBCdWRkeSB0d2lubmluZyBzeXN0ZW0NCg0KCS0tL
S0tT3JpZ2luYWwg TWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tIA0KCUZyb206IFBhdWwgQnJhdW5iZWhyZW5zI
FttYWlsdG86YmFrYWxpdGVA QkFLQUxJVEUuQ09NXSANCglTZW50OiBNb24gMjYvMDgvM
jAwMiAyMzo1MyANCglUbzogU0NVQkEt TEBMSVNUU0VSVi5CUk9XTi5FRFUgDQoJQ2M6I
A0KCVN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBbU0NVQkEtTF0gRm9y IFNhbGUNCgkNCgkNCg0KCVdoYXQgY
SBzdHJhbmdlIHNldHVwISAgSXMgdGhhdCBob3cgeW91IGd1 eXMgZG8gaXQgb3ZlciBvb
iB0aGUgb3RoZXIgc2lkZQ0KCW9mIHRoZSBwb25kPyAgTm8gYmFuZHMs IGJ1dCBhICJkd
WFsIGJvb3QiIGluc3RlYWQ/ICBOZXZlciBzZWVuIHN1Y2ggYQ0KCXRoaW5nIGJl Zm9yZ
S4NCgkNCglPbiBNb25kYXksIEF1Z3VzdCAyNiwgMjAwMiwgYXQgMDI6MTggUE0sIENvc2
1h IFBhcG91aXMgd3JvdGU6DQoJDQoJPiBJIGFtIHNlbGxpbmcgYSB0d2luIHNldC4uLg
0KCT4NCgk+ IDxodHRwOi8vY2dpLmViYXkuY28udWsvd3MvZUJheUlTQVBJLmRsbD9WaW
V3SXRlbSZpdGVtPTE4 NTQ0NDc1MDU+DQoJPg0KCT4gVGFrZSBhIGxvb2suLi4uLg0KCT
4NCgk+IENvc21hDQoJPg0KCQ0K CQ0KDQo=
Nick, I am a new re-subscriber to Scuba-L since I unsubscribed over
a year ago. But I have heard so many wonderful things about how well
you run this list that I just had to take a look to find out myself.
Nick, I really am an admirer of yours. Especially after reading the
results of your accomplishments from the LISTSERV archives of Scuba-L.
I am so thrilled every time I read that bi-monthly Guideline of yours.
If the other 10,000+ LISTSERV Lists were run like yours, they could
have had the peace and quiet you have brought to this LIST too!.
If I weren't a Fish, I could kiss you for that.
I love this LIST so much that I hope it'll stay this way, so that I
can enjoy the peaceful and quiet environment you have created for
scuba divers. They TALK so much about scuba in the other LISTS and
newsgroups. Disgusting!
Your fan and admirer,
-- Bob.
================================
Brown.edu's action on Nick was polite and swift: Nick was BOOTED
out with a short deadline to move! Let's hear it from Nick:
>>Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 16:44:36 -0400
>>From: Nick Simicich <n...@scifi.squawk.com>
>>Subject: Brown University's hosting of this mailing list
>>Sender: Scuba diving discussion list <scu...@listserv.brown.edu>
>>
>>I have been in contact with the listserv administrators at Brown
>>University. They have told me that, in the near future, Brown will
>>cease hosting all mailing lists that are not directly related to
>>University business.
>>
>>The suggestion was that, to avoid unexpected interruptions, we plan
>>on moving to another host as soon as possible.
>>
>>At current course and speed, on the 22nd of this month, I will move
>>the list to squawk.com.
==================================
I took no further action. Nick dragged his feet for weeks, and since
the list was DEAD anyway, no one pursued the matter further. It's
still at Brown.edu but remained comatose today.
Now Nick's grossly inappropriate action was CENSORSHIP.
Nick Simicich's CENSORSHIP was embraced by Hugh Huntzinger.
It was a CLEAR case that my "free speech" was seriously violated.
No whining about it. Just a statement of FACTS and the FACTUAL
record!
-- Bob.
Reef Fish
> Bob Ling (aka "Reef Fish") wrote:
> >
> > ... The writer chose to interview me because I was the
> > most vocal of all professors against such "student abuse"...
>
>
> What you call "student abuse", others called protected free speech.
>
against another person. But it DOES include defending oneself against
malicious attacks by other's lies, which was what *I* was doing then,
and doing NOW.
> A year later on Scuba-L, what others called "abuse", you conveniently
> called your protected free speech.
That's why you're all screwed up about what constitute "free speech".
Free speech is what I am excercising HERE, and would not for a minute
try to censor you or Ron Lee or any other IDIOTS from excercising
your right to make a fool of yourselves.
YOU, on the other hand, tried to CENSOR others (including me) for
expressing their views. And you found one swollen headed dictator
by the name of Nick Simicich to side with you and be your hatchetman,
to have driven ALL others away by their VOLUNTARY mass exodus (from
Scuba-L), and Scuba-L ended up as a DEAD LIST in which you and
Simicich reside, congratulating yourself on you censorial successes
I am sure.
See the Case Study on Censorship by Nick, posted earlier.
It's a perfect portrayal of HIS character. It's a perfect inference
about his supporter, Hugh Huntzinger, on the subjects of "free speech"
and "censorship".
> You took vigilante actions that were designed to embarrass, silence and
> ultimately censor Phi Sigma Pi's voice.
I am the strongest advocate AGAINST all forms of censorship.
Hugh, you're not only the FIRST ever declared yourself as holding a
permanent GRUDGE against me on a frivol (see details in a separate
post), you are the FIRST ever to falsely accuse me of attempting to
censor anyone! That's how far off base you are.
You GRUDGE is getting to your head, Hugh.
I exposed their LIES and ABUSES of free speech against me personally.
They were made aware of the fact that they need responsible action.
Defending oneself against LIES and libelous and viciously false
personal attacks is call "self-defence", not "censorship".
Regarding the Case Study of Nick's censorship on my free speech,
if you can't tell the difference between CENSORSHIP, and free
speech, you've got a long way to learn, Hugh!
> Refusing to have the rules that you choose to apply to others to then
> also be equally applied to yourself is a hypocritic self-contradiction.
Wrong! I abided by ALL rules in a self-regulated LIST or newsgroup.
The Case Study provided solid evidence of that. What it also showed
was the CENSOR's non-enforcement of rules on others while making
EXCUSES that violated rules while I didn't. That's called transparent
dirty politics.
You're have just too much GRUDGE in you and too little understanding
of the PRINCIPLES of free speech and fair play (to denounce LIES
and LIBELOUS statements against others) to understand.
It is NOT libelous to call you a "supreme hypocrite" when I backed it
up with FACTS to support it. There is no LIE involved.
It is NOT libelous or against any rule to label Ron Lee, Forest Aten
or any of the other IDIOTS for identifying their acts which earned
them their idiotic labels.
>
>
>
> > I have nothing to be ashamed of...
>
> That's where you are apparently quite different from many other people.
Why don't you go to that webpage you dug up (intended to be YOUR
mud slinging on me) and tell us WHAT is it in the published interview
that I should be ashamed of.
> This wasn't an isolated example. You've also previously expressed no
> regrets for disclosing trusted private email...that is, until it was
> done to you. Then it then became a horrible affrontory and crime.
NOW comes the source of your permanent GRUDGE.
Since you insist, I'll repeat my explanation, but in a separate post!
> > Now Hugh, what was it that prompted you to try to discredit my
> > professional career ...?
>
> You're retired: whatever professional career you had is over.
No, that's true only for a peon in the US Army like yourself!
For me, it's NEVER over. My reputation is there even after I am DEAD.
Furthermore, my name, my professional career, and my professional
reputation, is NOT legal target for dirt being slung by you or anyone
else, based on your FALSE and LIBELOUS statements and innuendos.
>
> The only person who gives you any respect anymore is the kid behind the
> counter at McDonald's, because his job requires him to do so.
That's what why they call "military intelligence" and ozymoron! :-))
I know FOR SURE (when say "only person who") that you have unknowingly
insulted more folks than you can imagine, without having to name
any of them.
> If you want respect from anyone else, you will have to earn it.
That's what *I* said years ago, and repeating many times since.
> To do that, you'll have to overcome your existing reputation:
You mean you have dig back to 1993 to quote your pal/god Nick Simicich?
Nick was trying to defend HIS pal, Dave Weller, for being told he
was ALL WRONG about buoyancy control. The debate started before 1990,
the Nick, Dave, and another Dave came to be known as the "Triumperate
of Twits" when it comes to the subject of BUOYANCY CONTROL.
YOu can find PLENTY of posts since 1993 that PROVED Nick to be dead
wrong. But I wouldn't censor any of what he said. Only rebut and
club him over the head with FACTS.
The above was one of the follow-up to a thread I started
Subject: Re: Dear Mr. Dave Waller
View: Complete Thread (9 articles)
Date: 1993-04-25 14:44:31 PST
==================================
I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY don't want to continue any flame fest with
Mr. Waller, and I won't. But when I was called a blatant liar publicly,
I felt I need to respond.
< ... >
The first time I got into an argument with Mr. Waller on a net was when
I was discussing ULTIMATE BUOYANCY CONTROL, when Mr. Waller didn't even
know a diver should be NEUTRALLY BUOYANT at all time during a dive, even
on ascent ... to use breath control, etc. (advanced technique). He was
TEACHING his students to DUMP ALL AIR from the BC, kick like hell to ascend,
..., and lambasted me as he is doing NOW, about how little I know about
diving.
Well, Mr. Waller, are you STILL teaching that method of ascent? So that
the students can use their swimming skills to bicycle vigorously all the
way up? Go look up what you wrote in the rec-scuba archives|
===================================
Nick flamed me for years about my LACK of knowledge about buoyancy
control. Yet he blithely boasted (while sitting in his rocking chair)
that by a merely combination of guesstimate of his wetsuit size and
a little physics, that he needed 45 (FORTY FIVE) pounds of lead,
diving in Cozumel!
Read about it in the archives!
That's how much your hero Nick knows about scuba, and how much you know
about FREE SPEECH and CENSORSHIP.
-- Bob.
Reef Fish
"Re: Depth charts for popular dive destinations (Re: Depth of the
Las Palmas Wall)",
but since the content has nothing to do with anything in the subject,
I am re-posting it under an appropriate subject.
" H. Huntzinger" <{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-...@huntzinger.com> wrote in message news:<{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba-5D8B4...@news-east.ash.giganews.com>...
> Bob Ling (aka "Reef Fish") wrote:
> >
> > ... The writer chose to interview me because I was the
> > most vocal of all professors against such "student abuse"...
>
>
> What you call "student abuse", others called protected free speech.
>
No, protected free speech does NOT include LIES and libelous statements
against another person. But it DOES include defending oneself against
malicious attacks by other's lies, which was what *I* was doing then,
and doing NOW.
> A year later on Scuba-L, what others called "abuse", you conveniently
> called your protected free speech.
That's why you're all screwed up about what constitute "free speech".
Free speech is what I am excercising HERE, and would not for a minute
try to censor you or Ron Lee or any other IDIOTS from excercising
your right to make a fool of yourselves.
YOU, on the other hand, tried to CENSOR others (including me) for
expressing their views. And you found one swollen headed dictator
by the name of Nick Simicich to side with you and be your hatchetman,
to have driven ALL others away by their VOLUNTARY mass exodus (from
Scuba-L), and Scuba-L ended up as a DEAD LIST in which you and
Simicich reside, congratulating yourself on you censorial successes
I am sure.
See the Case Study on Censorship by Nick, posted earlier.
It's a perfect portrayal of HIS character. It's a perfect inference
about his supporter, Hugh Huntzinger, on the subjects of "free speech"
and "censorship".
> You took vigilante actions that were designed to embarrass, silence and
> ultimately censor Phi Sigma Pi's voice.
I am the strongest advocate AGAINST all forms of censorship.
Hugh, you're not only the FIRST ever declared yourself as holding a
permanent GRUDGE against me on a frivol (see details in a separate
post), you are the FIRST ever to falsely accuse me of attempting to
censor anyone! That's how far off base you are.
You GRUDGE is getting to your head, Hugh.
I exposed their LIES and ABUSES of free speech against me personally.
They were made aware of the fact that they need responsible action.
Defending oneself against LIES and libelous and viciously false
personal attacks is call "self-defence", not "censorship".
Regarding the Case Study of Nick's censorship on my free speech,
if you can't tell the difference between CENSORSHIP, and free
speech, you've got a long way to learn, Hugh!
> Refusing to have the rules that you choose to apply to others to then
> also be equally applied to yourself is a hypocritic self-contradiction.
Wrong! I abided by ALL rules in a self-regulated LIST or newsgroup.
The Case Study provided solid evidence of that. What it also showed
was the CENSOR's non-enforcement of rules on others while making
EXCUSES that violated rules while I didn't. That's called transparent
dirty politics.
You're have just too much GRUDGE in you and too little understanding
of the PRINCIPLES of free speech and fair play (to denounce LIES
and LIBELOUS statements against others) to understand.
It is NOT libelous to call you a "supreme hypocrite" when I backed it
up with FACTS to support it. There is no LIE involved.
It is NOT libelous or against any rule to label Ron Lee, Forest Aten
or any of the other IDIOTS for identifying their acts which earned
them their idiotic labels.
>
>
>
> > I have nothing to be ashamed of...
>
> That's where you are apparently quite different from many other people.
Why don't you go to that webpage you dug up (intended to be YOUR
mud slinging on me) and tell us WHAT is it in the published interview
that I should be ashamed of.
> This wasn't an isolated example. You've also previously expressed no
> regrets for disclosing trusted private email...that is, until it was
> done to you. Then it then became a horrible affrontory and crime.
NOW comes the source of your permanent GRUDGE.
Since you insist, I'll repeat my explanation, but in a separate post!
> > Now Hugh, what was it that prompted you to try to discredit my
> > professional career ...?
>
> You're retired: whatever professional career you had is over.
No, that's true only for a peon in the US Army like yourself!
For me, it's NEVER over. My reputation is there even after I am DEAD.
Furthermore, my name, my professional career, and my professional
reputation, is NOT legal target for dirt being slung by you or anyone
else, based on your FALSE and LIBELOUS statements and innuendos.
>
> The only person who gives you any respect anymore is the kid behind the
> counter at McDonald's, because his job requires him to do so.
That's what why they call "military intelligence" and ozymoron! :-))
I know FOR SURE (when say "only person who") that you have unknowingly
insulted more folks than you can imagine, without having to name
any of them.
> If you want respect from anyone else, you will have to earn it.
That's what *I* said years ago, and repeating many times since.
> To do that, you'll have to overcome your existing reputation:
You mean you have dig back to 1993 to quote your pal/god Nick Simicich?
Nick was trying to defend HIS pal, Dave Weller, for being told he
was ALL WRONG about buoyancy control. The debate started before 1990,
the Nick, Dave, and another Dave came to be known as the "Triumperate
of Twits" when it comes to the subject of BUOYANCY CONTROL.
YOu can find PLENTY of posts since 1993 that PROVED Nick to be dead
wrong. But I wouldn't censor any of what he said. Only rebut and
club him over the head with FACTS.
>
The above was one of the follow-up to a thread I started