Carib Inn & Bruce Bowker and False Allegations
afn2...@freenet.ufl.edu
On 17 Sep 1995 mrm...@nwrain.com wrote:
> I worked for three years managing Dive Bonaire, the diving operation next door to Bruce's Carib Inn. I can say for a fact that on
> Island of Bonaire, there is not an opperation more devoted to safety, quality diving, reef ecology, and top notch service than the
> Carib Inn.
>
> Bruce carefully screens all of his staff and only hires top notch personal with execptional credentials. The chances of a divemaster
> or instructor taking people out stoned is very unlikely.
>
> Bruce deserves a full apology by the person making the claims. This is another example of the ditzheads getting "online" with the
> services such as AOL, etc.
>
> Unfortunately, getting the courts involved is not appropriate for what has happened. We all are free to access information and to
> share our opinions. Anyone out of line will always create further discussion and be totally flamed if appropriate.
THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE! It is really obnoxious to get the courts
involved. Pathetic.
There is no easy solution to these problems which will get more
frequent. Perhaps we should set up a separate group/list called
rec.scuba.fiction
That way divers who want to alert others to bad businesses can do so
under the legal? saftey of saying it was not to be taken for truth or
legal "slander". Then posters would only have to worry about THEIR
concience (MORALS). Keep the lawyers out!!!
ANYWAYS, what does the law (ha!) think??? That everybody is soooo
stupid as to not take any bad comment on the Internet with a GRAIN OF SALT?
For example, hundreds of divers certified by ______ (PADI, NAUI, etc.)
have later died. duh! Does that mean those agencies are to be avoided?
Am I gonna get sued for saying that? That happens to be true, but y'all
get the point.
AJ in Fla
Disclaimer: The above was pure fiction. Go away lawyers!!!
>
> Flame AOL and the woman making the claims.
>
> She sounds like she spent too much time on the Windjammer!
>
> Michael Conkle
> mrm...@nwrain.com
>
> Manager, Dive Bonaire, 1985 - 1987
>
>
>
mrm...@nwrain.com
Island of Bonaire, there is not an opperation more devoted to safety, quality diving, reef ecology, and top notch service than the
Carib Inn.
Bruce carefully screens all of his staff and only hires top notch personal with execptional credentials. The chances of a divemaster
or instructor taking people out stoned is very unlikely.
Bruce deserves a full apology by the person making the claims. This is another example of the ditzheads getting "online" with the
services such as AOL, etc.
Unfortunately, getting the courts involved is not appropriate for what has happened. We all are free to access information and to
share our opinions. Anyone out of line will always create further discussion and be totally flamed if appropriate.
Flame AOL and the woman making the claims.
Rich Gibson
: afn2...@freenet.ufl.edu wrote:
: Unfortunately, I think you ar wrong about there being no need to get
: the courts involved. As much as I dislike law suits of any sort.
: The problem is that the person making the allegations is hiding behind
: an alias and without a lawsuit, Bowker and co will get no help or
: cooperation from AOL.
: Most businesses live or die on their reputation. It is impossible to
: defend and protect yourself from an unknown attacker.
It is trivial. The idiot (Bowker) has complete access to the net. He
can post his side of any dispute. He can offer testimonials of those who
believe that he is honorable. Instead, he has demonstrated his lack of
ethics and dishonorable intent by involving the law. This show him to be
a cretin undeserving of my business.
As an aside, his asinine resort to the law has made this issue far more
important than it would have been. If he had not been so childish as to
resort to the law this whole mess would be long forgotten.
--
Rich Gibson drah...@netcom.com [\] PADI DM Candidate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with an Hawaiian
pizza?
ejoh...@uiowa.edu
tried to get a room there last New Year's eve. I discovered that it is nearly
impossible toget a room there over any popular period less than a year ahead.
I wonder how familiar you who are flaming on this are with Boweker's
operation. Have you used his operation... do you have actual first-hand
knowledge of a problem?
A flame like this is potentially disasterous to a business. In this case,
one that is a favorite of many people.
I just hate to see this forum degenerate into a name calling contest.
IMHO: Postings that attack another person or dive operation should be
made only under the most stringent conditions. The press cannot attack a
citizen in the USA without proof or fear of litigation. The same standard
seems reasonable here, given that the circulation exceeds that of most papers.
Alex M. Wolff - Sea Wolff Diving
>It is trivial. The idiot (Bowker) has complete access to the net. He
>can post his side of any dispute. He can offer testimonials of those who
>believe that he is honorable. Instead, he has demonstrated his lack of
>ethics and dishonorable intent by involving the law. This show him to be
>a cretin undeserving of my business.
>As an aside, his asinine resort to the law has made this issue far more
>important than it would have been. If he had not been so childish as to
>resort to the law this whole mess would be long forgotten.
>--
>Rich Gibson drah...@netcom.com [\] PADI DM Candidate
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rich,
I don't know about you or anybody else on the board but I don't want
to read a lot of gibberish between two parties with personal problem,
especially when neither side can prove their point and convince me of
anything concrete.
I see the lack of ethics and dishonorable intent as being entirely by
the ANonymous poster. IF the INN really is managed in a dangerous
fashion, she has failed to put an end to the practice and endangers us
all (if the allegation is true!).
Believe half of what you see and none of what anonymous says!
BTW - be sure to let us know when you are a certified DM and are
looking for a job. With attitude, ettiquette, and recognition for the
whole dive community as potential customers pre-requisites for good
divemasters, we have all been able to evaluate you on theses aspects.
Alex
Alex M. Wolff
Sea Wolff Diving
Sea Wolff Dive Log for Windows
E. Farmingdale, NY
http://www.interport.net/~seawolff/
Rich Gibson
: BTW - be sure to let us know when you are a certified DM and are
: looking for a job. With attitude, ettiquette, and recognition for the
: whole dive community as potential customers pre-requisites for good
: divemasters, we have all been able to evaluate you on theses aspects.
So you have a problem with a vigorous defense of free speech on the net?
I guess I would not want to be involved with you on a professional
basis. I consider that Bowker's attempt to intimidate the electronic
scuba community into silence shows a bad attitude, lack of etiquite, and
a supreme contempt for the whole dive community.
I guess that you agree with Bowker, and would also like the community to
be silenced unless we have nice things to say.
What a strange attitude you have!
--
Rich Gibson drah...@netcom.com [\] PADI DM Candidate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Arias
In Article<43hvee$1...@news1.tacoma.net>, <mrm...@nwrain.com> writes:
> I worked for three years managing Dive Bonaire, the diving operation next
> door to Bruce's Carib Inn. I can say for a fact that on
> Island of Bonaire, there is not an opperation more devoted to safety,
> quality diving, reef ecology, and top notch service than the
> Carib Inn.
In 1992 and 1993 I participated in an ecological study of reefs sponsored by
the University of Toronto and Earthwatch. Our diving logistical support
came from Bruce and I agree 100% with this assessment. He runs an excellent
organization and provides outstanding service.
--Dan Arias
Cupertino, California, USA
todd spindler
In article <drahcirrD...@netcom.com>, drah...@netcom.com (Rich>: afn2...@freenet.ufl.edu wrote:
>
>It is trivial. The idiot (Bowker) has complete access to the net. He
>>can post his side of any dispute. He can offer testimonials of those
>who
>believe that he is honorable. Instead, he has demonstrated his lack of
>>ethics and dishonorable intent by involving the law. This show him to
>be
>a cretin undeserving of my business.
If, in fact, Bowker has net access, I would welcome to hear his
comments on this affair. Until such time as we hear from him, or
from a person designated to disseminate his opinion, there is
little to be gained from name-calling. It does not lend credibility
to your opinions on the matter.
Bowker's decision to involve the court in this dispute appears
quite reasonable, given the paucity of facts at hand. The libel
laws for businesses and individuals exist precisely to protect
individuals and businesses from malicious attacks on their
professional character, with intent to cause financial harm.
Is there anything in this thread related to diving?
--
Todd Spindler | Dept. of Meteorology & Phys. Oceanography,
TSpi...@rsmas.miami.edu | Rosenstiel Sch. of Marine & Atmos. Sci.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education" - Einstein
--
Todd Spindler | Dept. of Meteorology & Phys. Oceanography,
TSpi...@rsmas.miami.edu | Rosenstiel Sch. of Marine & Atmos. Sci.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education" - Einstein
Bob_Crownfield
Here are two observations that seem to say that Bruce is
conscientious and operates a good resort. They both signed their reports.
Now we start to wonder why the other observer did not sign their report.
My conclusion is that there is some other reason here. Why no report to
resort management? What is the real reason for not being responsible? If
the divemaster was really unprofessional and irresponsible, how many more
divers were at risk because the problem was not reported, checked out,
and resolved in a mature way?
Bob
NorCaDiver
>So you have a problem with a vigorous defense of free speech on the net?
I, for one, would like to exercise my free speech to say that Rich
Gibson's uninformed and incredibly vulgar diatribes about Mr. Browker are
incredibly offensive. Add to that, he's just plain wrong!
>I guess I would not want to be involved with you on a professional
>basis.
Don't worry here, Rich. You'll not have any trouble NOT being involved on
a professional basis with a lot of people if you continue to rely on
vulgarity and hysteria to make yourself heard.
>I guess that you agree with Bowker, and would also like the community to
>be silenced unless we have nice things to say.
Bowker's objection to unfounded claims by a single skulker does NOT
constitute an attempt to silence the entire community.
>What a strange attitude you have!
ROFL.
Rocky Daniels
NorCa...@aol.com
Bob_Crownfield
>So you have a problem with a vigorous defense of free speech on the net?
>Rich Gibson drah...@netcom.com
Rich:
We have a problem with skulking libelous cowards who can not come
forth and be identified and stand behind their claims. The free speech
all of us will defend. It's just that with free spech comes
responsibility for your actions.
Bob
Bob_Crownfield
You hit it right on the nose. It is hard for us to read Rich and
realize that he just has trouble thinking clearly and logically.
Greg Tarsa USG
In article <43sg8q$k...@news.cuny.edu>, Bob_Crownfield <Bob_cro...@qc.edu> writes:
|>>
|>Rich:
|> Here are two observations that seem to say that Bruce is
|>conscientious and operates a good resort. They both signed their reports.
|>Now we start to wonder why the other observer did not sign their report.
This is the crux of the matter for me, regarding newsgroup communications.
Before I begin, let me point out that I am approaching this from a hypothetical
and general perspective. The particulars may cloud the discussion, but the
principles bear considering.
Bob has asserted that these two positive reports were signed and therefore have
more validity than an anonymous posting. But, "On the Internet, no one knows
you're a dog," as the saying goes. In the absence of universal integrity of
people on the net, and without any independent means of identification, all
internet communications are effectively anonymous.
An anonymous poster has nothing at stake to motivate him to deal conscientiously
with the truthfulness of his writings. He is free to fabricate positions for
personal gain, to deliberately inflame, as well as genuinely edify. As
communication has developed, certain feedback mechanisms have disappeared or
changed and others taken their place. For instance, in a pre-writing era, a
person could examine the face, bearing, and actions of a speaker telling a
story to determine whether it was true. When printing came into the picture
then the ability to examine the person was lost, but the ability to examine the
entire argument, without relying on memory was possible. Neil Postman, in
his book, "Amusing Ourselves To Death," deals with this in a very interesting
manner. Anyway, back to my point about anonymity and free speech.
While I have to stretch a bit to get through Mr. Gibson's literary style, the
crux of his concern is that the "big guys" have all sorts of legal clubs with
which to beat the "little guys" into submission. Unfortunately, he goes on
to imply that all "big guys" are evil and all "little guys" are virtuous, a
patently erroneous statement.
However, network communications do not remedy the situation Mr. Gibson perceives
as being reality. Anonymous speech, whether signed with an obviously false
name, or signed with a potentially real name does not guarentee truth will out,
unless the reader is prepared to do a lot of digging to verify facts and
follow lines of arguments.
For the sake of argument, lets assume that all civic speech is truly anonymous.
Now, a "little guy" makes a truthful proposition about X. An evil "big guy"
whom we all know has comparably infinite resources at his command, can spam
the net with all manner of response to the "little guy's" proposition, all
ostensibly coming from different people, different machines, different states,
(since this is hypothetical), different countries. The form of the response may
be direct refutation, ad hominem attacks, or blatant agreement based on unsavory
and erroneous reasoning (implying that "little guy" keeps bad company).
The upshot is that without an identity, without nothing at stake, a reader really
has no basis for believing anything read on the Internet, unless he verifies it
for himself. Even an identify only makes it easier to establish veracity, it
does not eliminate the need. Face it, as much as it would be a good thing if
every member of society exemplified good character and love of truth over all,
it is not the case in this fallen world.
For what its worth,
Greg Tarsa
ta...@cssi.mv.com
Alex M. Wolff - Sea Wolff Diving
>Alex M. Wolff - Sea Wolff Diving (seaw...@interport.net) wrote:
>: BTW - be sure to let us know when you are a certified DM and are
>: looking for a job. With attitude, ettiquette, and recognition for the
>: whole dive community as potential customers pre-requisites for good
>: divemasters, we have all been able to evaluate you on theses aspects.
>So you have a problem with a vigorous defense of free speech on the net?
>I guess I would not want to be involved with you on a professional
>basis. I consider that Bowker's attempt to intimidate the electronic
>scuba community into silence shows a bad attitude, lack of etiquite, and
>a supreme contempt for the whole dive community.
>I guess that you agree with Bowker, and would also like the community to
>be silenced unless we have nice things to say.
>What a strange attitude you have!
>--
>Rich Gibson drah...@netcom.com [\] PADI DM Candidate
Mr. Gibson, you have missed the point entirely. I care not which side
of the coin you are on but with your approach to making your point.
It does pain me slightly to see that someone that considers themself
to be intelligent and yet so inflexible in iintepreting a course of
events. You have chosen a line of reasoning that is the least likely
motivation possible under the circumstances and choose to defend it
VICIOUSLY, with a bit of verbal abuse.
I have refused $s to train persons that are unable to get their point
across in a reasonable manner or approach everything as if it has to
be done with force. People that are unable to control their language
in a bar or schoolyard are equally unable to control themselves when
dealing with students and customers. I do not affiliate myself with
persons like this professionally. Where as you GUESS you would not
want to be involved with me professionally, I would not permit you the
opportunity to do so.
As far as your opinion - it is yours and you are welcome to it. That
you choose to share with out an alias is commendable. It would be
interesting to be able to actually read exactly what your opinion is
and on what subject you are offering it. It has gotten lost in all
the noise.
My opinion, plain and simple - 1) A person has the right to face their
accuser. 2) A person making an anonymous charge prevents the person
being charged from actually taking corrective action and therefore
endangers the public at large. 3) AOL is under no contractual
agreement to safeguard a persons true identity and therefore should
just hand it over. If I was Bowker, I would want to get direct
information from that person so I can investigate and come to concrete
conclusions and take appropriate action. 4) There are plenty of
negative criticisms on the boards but no law suits. There will not be
a general negative impact of your abilty to exercise your rights to
free speech as a result of this situation.
Of course I have a lot of other pinions as well.
Rich Gibson
: While I have to stretch a bit to get through Mr. Gibson's literary style, the
: crux of his concern is that the "big guys" have all sorts of legal clubs with
: which to beat the "little guys" into submission. Unfortunately, he goes on
: to imply that all "big guys" are evil and all "little guys" are virtuous, a
: patently erroneous statement.
I don't think that I imply that at all. I do imply that those who use
the courts inresponse to speech are self identifying themselves as
(small 'e') evil.
: For the sake of argument, lets assume that all civic speech is truly anonymous.
: Now, a "little guy" makes a truthful proposition about X. An evil "big guy"
: whom we all know has comparably infinite resources at his command, can spam
: the net with all manner of response to the "little guy's" proposition, all
: ostensibly coming from different people, different machines, different states,
: (since this is hypothetical), different countries. The form of the response may
: be direct refutation, ad hominem attacks, or blatant agreement based on unsavory
: and erroneous reasoning (implying that "little guy" keeps bad company).
Certainly a deep pocket corporation could dummy up many different,
seemingly unique, 'voices.' BUT those voices have no inherent value or
crediility on the involved newsgroups.
For that reason, an 'anonymous' (the original post was NOT contrary to
all posts on the subject, anonymous, it was from a standard aol account)
post on a scuba group has no great power to damage the Carib Inn, or any
other business. On the other hand, a post (or a whole bunch of them :-)
) b aa known poster, such as Bob Ling, out a certain dive computer company
will be taken with a great deal more belief.
For the Carib Inn to respond with a lawsuit is, in my view, a VERY BAD THING.
: The upshot is that without an identity, without nothing at stake, a reader really
: has no basis for believing anything read on the Internet, unless he verifies it
: for himself. Even an identify only makes it easier to establish veracity, it
: does not eliminate the need. Face it, as much as it would be a good thing if
: every member of society exemplified good character and love of truth over all,
: it is not the case in this fallen world.
Identity, and credibility, on the net is a function of reputation and
posting history. 'Truth' really does not matter in any individual
instance. To assume that _anything_ that you read on the net is 'true'
is very dangerous. For one thing, there really are very few things that
are 'true' or 'false.'
My main arguement is that the act of using the courts to respond to net
(usenet, aol, compuserve, etc) posts is wrong, and that those who use the
courts where mere speech will remedy any 'wrong' (I am still unconvinced
that the Carib Inn has suffered _ANY_ harm) should be punished by the
court of public opinion for their act.
--
Rich Gibson drah...@netcom.com [\] PADI DM Candidate
Ed Foster
>
>Bob_Crownfield (Bob_cro...@qc.edu) wrote:
>: Rich:
>: We have a problem with skulking libelous cowards who can not come
>: forth and be identified and stand behind their claims. The free speech
>: all of us will defend. It's just that with free spech comes
>: responsibility for your actions.
>
>an AOL user, posting under her standard 'screen name' on a scuba
>discussion group. Her post discussed _her_ experience, and asked for
>feedback.
>
Could someone post a copy of that AOL post that started this whole mess?
Ed Foster
Rich Gibson
: Rocky:
: You hit it right on the nose. It is hard for us to read Rich and
: realize that he just has trouble thinking clearly and logically.
If one were to look at that honestly, that is surely more defamatory than
the original post that a DM smoked dope. At least in my worldview, an
accusation of dope smoking is hardly defamatory, while a claim of
illogical thinking is a real assertation of wrong...
Just a data point.
Rich Gibson
: Rich:
: We have a problem with skulking libelous cowards who can not come
: forth and be identified and stand behind their claims. The free speech
: all of us will defend. It's just that with free spech comes
: responsibility for your actions.
The post that started this whole mess was not anonymous. The poster was
an AOL user, posting under her standard 'screen name' on a scuba
discussion group. Her post discussed _her_ experience, and asked for
feedback.
Bruce heard about the post and 'verified that it was false.' He demanded
that she retract her post, and when he received no response he filed suit.
She did _NOTHING_ that almost everyone on this group has not also done.
The difference is that the Carib Inn owner has reacted as a true coward
would react-he ran to a lawyer.
You say "with free speech comes responsibility for your actions." But!
Tell me, what will be the effect on the nets if this suit suceeds? Think
about it! The result will be an incredible chilling effect on all net
scuba postings.
Wonderful! The net can turn into a giant self censored version of Skin
Diver magazine. Have you ever read anything critical of a company in
skin diver? Do you _really_ want the net to become the same?
I don't!
Truly, what is the _real_ effect of one post on an AOL scuba group? How
much effect do you think she had? Let us assume her post was true (which
I am inclined to believe). She wrote that her instructor or DM smoked
dope, and she said something like 'you can imagine how I felt as a new
diver with a stoned instructor/DM'
Wow! What a revelation. Some caribian DM's/Instructors smoke dope.
That is hardly the writing of a 'skulking libelous coward.' (though, I
do like that phrasing, sort of like 'nattering nabobs of negativity',
good writing).
In reality, if someone wanted to damage the Carib Inn they would write
things like "they wouldn't let me dive my computer."
Think about it! If I read 'my DM was stoned" I would say ":so what"
OTOH, if you said "they wouldn't let me dive my computer" or "they limit
you to 60 foot dives" I would write them off.
Anyway, that is my take. I don't believe we can have free speech if some
(according to almost all reports reputable) dive shop in the Carribian
can force us all to 'watch our language.'
Robert Keeney
Subject: Re: They did it *AGAIN* Bring your K-Y to K-Man and score on
the K-Flame scale.
Date: 21 Sep 1995 20:49:08 GMT
Anybody ready for rec.scuba.moderated?
See below for why.
joel clark
In article <43p4gn$r...@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> Focu...@ix.netcom.com
(Robert Keeney ) writes:
>In <43p31o$1h...@news.cuny.edu> Bob_Crownfield <Bob_cro...@qc.edu>
>writes:
>>
>>Bob:
>>
>> You must have brass balls to object to his simple two word
>signature
>>and then close with your many lines.
>>
>>But then, we already know that, after your dozens of "S*A*L*E", Oh
oh,
>I
>>am sorry, it was PSA, wasn't it.
>>
>>
>****************************************************************
>
>Sept. 20, 1995
>
>What is the K-Flame (Keeney-Flame) scale? Simply a scale of 1 to 10,
>where a "1" is the mindless hurling of vulgar invective, and a "10" is
>on a par with Cyrano's "nose" monologue.
>
>You rate a "3" this time - I'm sure you can do better ;-)
>
>As a special service to improve the quality level of flaming on the
>Net, I will be glad to analyze anybody's flame and place it on this
>scale. Just send me your Cybercheque for $5.00 via Email, and I'll get
>right back to you. Over the months, from first-hand experience, I have
>become an expert on evaluating flames.
>
>Remember, you too can flame with the best.
>
>;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
>
>Robert
>--
>Robert Keeney, OWSI Marilyn King, OW, DS
> FOCUS ON TRAVEL - SOFT SCUBA
>Voice: (305) 557-1006 Fax: (305) 557-8007
> Focu...@ix.netcom.com
>* * * * * * * Stress-Free Dive & Ski Vacations * * * * * * *
In <43sgdd$s...@heron.rsmas.miami.edu> spin...@heron.rsmas.miami.edu
(todd spindler) writes:
>
>
>In article <drahcirrD...@netcom.com>, drah...@netcom.com (Rich
>Gibson) writes:
>>Alex M. Wolff - Sea Wolff Diving (seaw...@interport.net) wrote:
--
Robert Keeney, OWSI Marilyn King, OW, DS
FOCUS ON TRAVEL - SOFT SCUBA
Voice: (305) 557-1006 Fax: (305) 557-8007
Focu...@ix.netcom.com
* * * * * * * Stress-Free Dive & Ski Vacations * * * * * * *
Bob_Crownfield
The difference is that I used my name and address. You can find
me. I am not hiding. What I said, I said clearly and responsibly.
Besides, everyone who has been reading what you say, seems to agree. You
really should read the constitution, and the declaration of independence.
They contain some important ideas. As long as you live with those
freedoms, you should take the time to understand them, so that you do not
try to take them from others.
With freedom, comes responsibility.
Bob
Bob_Crownfield
It is not defamatory, it is truly just embarassing.
Bob_Crownfield
Sorry. You just do not get to rewrite the law, no matter how much
you want to. you can talk about freedom of speech all you want to. What
you really mean is freedom to talk withput responsibility.