A Very Memorable Dive in Cozumel
Reef Fish
diving with us. We went to Las Palmas for the second dive as a location
likely to encounter those juvenile drumfishes.
The irony was that we DID NOT see a juvenile drumfish, but we saw
practically everything else we could hope to see in Cozumel, all on the
ONE dive -- with pix to show -- thus disproving Photog's First Law that
when one FORGETS to bring the camera, everything shows up. <G>
Among the critter we saw on that 60-minute dive:
2 batfish! One red and one greyish brown. I had never seen one in
Cozumel before, or in the Caribbean for that matter.
2 scorpionfish.
1 large seahorse (6 inch) dark brown with white stripes.
1 spotted eagle ray.
2 turtles, one large one tiny.
1 Caribbean King crab and a cluster of lobsters (often seen there).
1 large octopus whose eyeball was tennis ball size -- that's all the
shot showed.
2 spotted moray eels.
1 sharptail eel -- haven't seen one of those in Cozumel for about 8 years.
Yes, there were plenty of reef fishes too. <G>
-- Bob.
Dan Bracuk, CTHD
keyboard resulting in:
:The irony was that we DID NOT see a juvenile drumfish, but we saw
:practically everything else we could hope to see in Cozumel, all on the
:ONE dive -- with pix to show -- thus disproving Photog's First Law that
:when one FORGETS to bring the camera, everything shows up. <G>
Do we get to see these pix?
Dan Bracuk
If at first you don't succeed, you run the risk of failure.
The Best of rec.scuba http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/RecScuba/
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Jack Sloan
"Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8fb7380b.0402...@posting.google.com...
Jack
Robert Wood
Wot, no partridge in a pear tree :-)
[\]Robert Wood
The St. Lawrence River - fresh, warm, visible diving.
mailto:rgw...@magma.ca
Reef Fish
> Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com (Reef Fish) pounded away at his
> keyboard resulting in:
>
> :The irony was that we DID NOT see a juvenile drumfish, but we saw
> :practically everything else we could hope to see in Cozumel, all on the
> :ONE dive -- with pix to show -- thus disproving Photog's First Law that
> :when one FORGETS to bring the camera, everything shows up. <G>
>
> Do we get to see these pix?
If I can remember how to put them up in a public site for viewing.
Also, since the pix were taken by the same POS (ReefMaster 200 digital)
as you have, the quality of the pix leave much to be desired -- would
more or less only serve as mug shots as evidence.
-- Bob.
Reef Fish
> >
> > Among the critter we saw on that 60-minute dive:
> >
> > 2 batfish! One red and one greyish brown. I had never seen one in
> > Cozumel before, or in the Caribbean for that matter.
> > 1 large seahorse (6 inch) dark brown with white stripes.
> > 1 spotted eagle ray.
> > 2 turtles, one large one tiny.
> > 1 large octopus whose eyeball was tennis ball size -- that's all the
> > shot showed.
> > 1 sharptail eel -- haven't seen one of those in Cozumel for about 8 years.
>
> Wot, no partridge in a pear tree :-)
Actually there was a gold chain on a black coral tree at 218 fsw off
Columbia Deep. I looked for it on the first dive, as I had
unsuccessfully looked for it on several occasions since I planted it
there around year 2000. :-)
To answer Jack sloan's question about dive shop and diving deep,
The shop was Caballito del Caribe (http://www.seahorsecozumel.com/)
Dan Bracuk dived with us on it last year Coz Mardi Gras time. We
liked especially its late start (10 am) -- by the time we get to dive
sites, almost everyone else is gone. Perhaps that's why we see so
many critters.
The Las Palmas dive was a shallow dive -- did not dive deeper than
70 fsw, and most of the finds were between 45 fsw and 60 fsw.
-- Bob.
Ron Lee
name-calling or other childish tactics like he did in a LU post.
Ron Lee
Dan Bracuk, CTHD
keyboard resulting in:
:If I can remember how to put them up in a public site for viewing.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/learn2/HowItWorks4_Free.html
Dan Bracuk, CTHD
keyboard resulting in:
:as you have, the quality of the pix leave much to be desired -- would
:more or less only serve as mug shots as evidence.
I thought the ones from Poynesia were rather nice.
Did you go to Coz during carnival again this year?
Reef Fish
> Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com (Reef Fish) pounded away at his
> keyboard resulting in:
> :Also, since the pix were taken by the same POS (ReefMaster 200 digital)
> :as you have, the quality of the pix leave much to be desired -- would
> :more or less only serve as mug shots as evidence.
>
> I thought the ones from Poynesia were rather nice.
That was the one time in about 10 years I put some pix on a web (by
Sony, I believe) that I am trying to remember how to do it.
Somebody else told me to try the Yahoo page. Will take another look
when I get home.
>
> Did you go to Coz during carnival again this year?
Only half of it. It was Feb 18-24 this year, but somebody had beaten
me to booking MY room, so I didn't get here till the 22nd, but caught
that parade and the finale which had FIREWORKS, for the first time, I
was told. The POS took the firework pix quite well. Our room was the
perfect location for looking at the fireworks because it was between
the Pro Dive pier and the Aldora pier, from which the fireworks were
fired. When they cross-fired at each other, we were right in the
middle! That waw quite a show during the 3-hour parade.
-- Bob.
Ed Stroup
Ed in Spokane - just back from Coz trip # 20 :-)
"Ron Lee" <ronlee...@pcisys.net> wrote in message
news:403fc4f...@news.pcisys.net...
Reef Fish
> Why do you try to bait him, Ron?
Because he is an IDIOT who has nothing to contribute in scuba but the same
whine about "childish", "name-calling", blamed on his "jihad".
Pat says, "I call you a friend because you are a friend."
I say, "I call Ron an IDIOT because, and only because, he is an IDIOT."
And Ron furnishes proof EVERY TIME that he so deserve the title.
> Ed in Spokane - just back from Coz trip # 20 :-)
-- Bob. Still on the same trip ... lost track of Coz trip No. after
the first 50 few years ago. :-)
Ron Lee
normal childish name-calling for no apparent reason. Fact. Now grow
up
Ron Lee
Reef Fish
> Bob, look at your original post and note that you resorted to your
> normal childish name-calling for no apparent reason. Fact. Now grow
> up
>
> Ron Lee
Ron, MOST of the IDIOTs in rec.scuba have outgrown their idiocy, and/or
left scuba discussions to scuba discussions. EXCEPT the Original, and
Perennial IDIOT, Ron the "childish" Lee.
What original post? Ed Stroup included it in HIS post. I snipped it
for brevity because I figured everyone knew what that post was by now.
Here it is, just for IDIOT Ron Lee (and tell us what's your problem to
have posted YOUR follow-up post that prompted Ed Stroup's post):
======= Begin, original post of this thread =========
Two divers from Germany who had never seen a juvenile drumfish were
diving with us. We went to Las Palmas for the second dive as a location
likely to encounter those juvenile drumfishes.
The irony was that we DID NOT see a juvenile drumfish, but we saw
practically everything else we could hope to see in Cozumel, all on the
ONE dive -- with pix to show -- thus disproving Photog's First Law that
when one FORGETS to bring the camera, everything shows up. <G>
Among the critter we saw on that 60-minute dive:
2 batfish! One red and one greyish brown. I had never seen one in
Cozumel before, or in the Caribbean for that matter.
2 scorpionfish.
1 large seahorse (6 inch) dark brown with white stripes.
1 spotted eagle ray.
2 turtles, one large one tiny.
1 Caribbean King crab and a cluster of lobsters (often seen there).
1 large octopus whose eyeball was tennis ball size -- that's all the
shot showed.
2 spotted moray eels.
1 sharptail eel -- haven't seen one of those in Cozumel for about 8 years.
Yes, there were plenty of reef fishes too. <G>
-- Bob.
======== End, original post of this thread ==========
Ron Lee, you are a pathetic IDIOT in this newsgroup that has been
without a life and without any SCUBA contribution since 1998.
The archives are FULL of your idiotic and pathetic contributions.
Get a life.
-- Bob.
Ron Lee
this thread. The fact remains the same that you have problems Bob.
I cannot understand why Sue has not worked on that part of your
personality that requires extensive work. Perhaps she has given up or
does not see this side of you.
Of course your response to my posts again clearly shows your childish
response to anyone who points out your failings. Calling me childish
or idiot has no effect on me. Obviously it hits home with you...as it
SHOULD.
Not go play in the sand Bob Ling
Ron Lrr
Reef Fish
> A correction is in order. It was the original post about LU...not
> this thread.
> Calling me childish or idiot has no effect on me.
That much is obvious because you are an ingrained childish IDIOT.
It's for the new readers who may not have known what a kook you are
and my even inadvertently think you knew SOMETIHNG about scuba.
It's my PSA when you choose to stick your nose into what's none
of your business -- the present thread!
> Ron Lrr
You're trying to change your name to defect the PSA, Ron LEE? :-))
-- Bob da Feeesh.
Ron Lee
good mind is such a terrible thing to waste with a deficient
personality.
PS Bob, Lrr was a typo for Lee
My original point was valid. It was nice to see a normal post instead
of the childish one you made about the same time on LU.
Ron Lee
Reef Fish
> See how Bob Ling continues to resort to name-calling.
Ron, you anal fixed scum of the earth! I post by the name Reef Fish.
Everyone who has been reading scuba groups for awhile know my other
posting names as well as my real name.
NONE of my 10,000+ posts in the past dozen years used the name Bob
Ling. Why is it that you feel you need to use it in your attempt to
make innuendos and slanderous remarks about me, my family, and my
profession which is NOT involved in any of my scuba postings?
THAT, Ron Lee -- is why you are called for what you are -- an IDIOT.
You are actually giving an IDIOT a bad name. Some of them are far
smarter and sensible than you have exhibited yourself.
Just do a groups.google.com search on ANY or ALL of my posted
articles,
and ask yourself WHY, as in this thread, you are the ONLY one who
can't follow a post on scuba diving without your personal attacks --
on something that happened in A DIFFERENT THREAD no less.
Saying you are an IDIOT is not "name-calling". That's a descriptive
characterization of all the idiotic things you do, and have been doing
for years.
>
> PS Bob, Lrr was a typo for Lee
You are severely HUMOR IMPAIRED too.
>
> My original point was valid.
You had NO POINT to make, in this or any other thread other than a
revelation that your mother shouldn't have put you through the
severe toilet training (described and analyzed by someone who knew you
I presume -- retrievable via google!) to have molded your character
and presonality into the nagging mental-midget that you are.
The IRONY that Ron Lee overlooked was that he thought he would get
some respect or special treatment from Aldora for which he spammed
while
earning his Aldora IDIOT trademark. Instead, he was a NOBODY to the
Aldora owner and its crew, and when told who Ron Lee was, Dave could
only say Ron Lee was a nuisance that gave Aldora a bad name.
That pretty much summarized Ron Lee's TOTAL contribution to this and
other scuba newsgroups ever since he raised his ugly head in rec.scuba
nearly 10 years ago.
-- Bob.
Ron Lee
butiful ocean fishes. How is it slanderous to note the FACT that your
name-calling is childish? Finally hitting home Bob?
Fact is that in another post you called me names for ZERO reason. I
just point out to the world that Bob Ling has to resort to
name-calling when his pots have no substance.
Where do you get the false idea that I expected something from Aldora
when I posted actual positive reports...as others can do about any
dive op? I was not paid to do that.
As for Dave making some alleged negative comment about me...well
consider the source (you) and it has no credibility.
Sometimes I wonder why I try to help you grow up. After so many
years it must be genetic or an ingrained character flaw. But I will
keep trying to make you a productive and sociable member of society.
Ron Lee
Lee Bell
> Bob Ling, I post your real name because your actions denigrate the
> butiful ocean fishes. How is it slanderous to note the FACT that your
> name-calling is childish? Finally hitting home Bob?
That would be Robert F Ling. If you're going to post his name, you might as
well get it right.
Does it surprise you that he's still calling people names? It's not like
it's a new habit or anything.
> Sometimes I wonder why I try to help you grow up. After so many
> years it must be genetic or an ingrained character flaw. But I will
> keep trying to make you a productive and sociable member of society.
A waste of time. Adding him to your blocked sender's list is a much easier
answer.
>> NONE of my 10,000+ posts in the past dozen years used the name Bob
>> Ling. Why is it that you feel you need to use it in your attempt to
>> make innuendos and slanderous remarks about me, my family, and my
>> profession which is NOT involved in any of my scuba postings?
Hmmm. I wonder how it happens that everybody knows his name, but he's never
used it.
I wonder how everybody happens to know his former profession that has not
been involved in any of his scuba postings.
How do you slander somebody's profession when that profession is "retired"?
>> Just do a groups.google.com search on ANY or ALL of my posted
>> articles, and ask yourself WHY, as in this thread, you are the ONLY one
who
>> can't follow a post on scuba diving without your personal attacks --
>> on something that happened in A DIFFERENT THREAD no less.
Funny, I thought that was the thing to do relative to Bob. I don't think
Ron's ever tried to divert attention from his own mistakes, lied about
everybody that does not agree with him or call them names, sometimes even
when they do agree with him.
>> Saying you are an IDIOT is not "name-calling".
Take a poll and see what everybody else thinks. You may be surprised.
>> That's a descriptive characterization of all the idiotic things you do,
and have been
>> doing for years.
No, what it is, is a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black.
Lee
KCStorm
Glad to see that someone else thinks Ron Lee is an idiot. :D
--
KCStorm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via DeeperBlue.net - Your Online Resource for the UnderWater World.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
KCStorm's Profile: http://forums.deeperblue.net/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=2616
View this thread on DeeperBlue.net: http://forums.deeperblue.net/showthread.php?threadid=42475
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Reef Fish
> Bob Ling, I post your real name because your actions denigrate the
> butiful ocean fishes.
That's the lamest excuse you've used, for the second time I recall.
What about the hundreds of times you changed the SUBJECT of a thread
to something derogatory about Bob Ling in the NEW SUBJECT you created?
Littered with those in the groups.google.com archives.
Just another proof/confirmation of Ron Lee's idiocy.
> How is it slanderous to note the FACT that your
> name-calling is childish? Finally hitting home Bob?
Yup, Ron. It was your home run alright. The LAST STRAW. The
ultimate PROOF of your IDIOCY!
Finally hitting YOUR idiocy on the HEAD of the NAIL! The slanderous
part was all your gratuitous remarks about my wife, my family, my
friends, and my profession as a professor!
Just look up the archives. You forgot THOSE didn't you?
Ron Lee will be immortalized by this and earlier Profiles as the
Supreme Hypocrite (calling OTHERS "idiot" when he kept whining about
himself being called an idiot) and the cheap, sleasy excuses for
trying to carve a name for himself in the annals of scuba forums.
You carved your name alright, Ron Lee. In LARGE BLOCK LETTERS, in
your scuba forum COFFIN.
The derogatory remarks about my family, my profession when Ron Lee
failed to respond to the SUBSTANCE of a scuba discussion --
THOSE are the slandering remarks that had NOTHING whatsoever I had
ever posted in any scuba forum. THOSE are you bottom-dwelling
tactics as scum of the earth!
"name-calling"? I call you an IDIOT because you are one! Why is it
that in all the years (and 10,000+ postings), you are the ONLY ONE
who has ever been called an IDIOT by me, and is STILL the same IDIOT
you were in 1998 when I had already documented in rec.scuba your
IDIOT Profile up to that point. Including the slandering of me in
my profession!
> Where do you get the false idea that I expected something from Aldora
> when I posted actual positive reports...as others can do about any
> dive op? I was not paid to do that.
Many of my FRIENDS dived with Aldora and expressed reasons why THEY
did it. They don't SPAM like you do, on idiotic REASONS, and repeating
the same idiotic reasons ad infinitum.
Of course you were not paid to do so. Dave didn't even KNOW who you
were after years of your spamming. You were a NOBODY who tried to
make a name for yourself, like CPR86. Where is HE now? He did a
much better job with NOISE than you, Ron Lee.
In the end, you are a NOBODY in the scuba world, a NOBODY in ANY dive
shop in Cozumel. All you established was your OWN IDIOCY and the
worthless personna that you are. PERIOD.
Am I DRIVING THIS HOME to you now, Ron Lee?
> As for Dave making some alleged negative comment about me...well
> consider the source (you) and it has no credibility.
ROTFLMAO.
Dave knows ME, and knows me well! The negative comments about you
were MADE by DAVE, not me. He didn't know who you were.
I am probably one of the very few divers whom Dave invited (i.e.,
without paying Aldora anything) me to dive with Aldora, and I did.
> Sometimes I wonder why I try to help you grow up.
Answer: Ron Lee is an IDIOT. I am already much older than you are.
> After so many
> years it must be genetic or an ingrained character flaw. But I will
> keep trying to make you a productive and sociable member of society.
>
> Ron Lee
I am, and have already been a productive and sociable member of society,
LONG before and ever since Ron Lee reared his IDIOTIC head in rec.scuba.
You have failed MISERABLY in your self-granised excuse. You have failed
MISERABLY as a contributor to scuba discussions in scuba forums. You
have failed MISERABLY as a human being, Ron Lee.
Now try to redeem yourself by keeping your mouth shut when you should,
and open it when you stick to the SCUBA substance of the discussion.
And GET A LIFE!
It's the best I can wish for you -- a highly improbable event.
-- Bob. (Reef Fish, Feesh, Feeesh, da Feesh, Feeeeeeesh, etc.) --
THESE are the name by which I post and identified by ALL
non-idiots in ALL scuba forums, because "Reef Fish" is
the ONLY name I have used since 1992, for reasons of
separating my professional name from my SCUBA and SCUBA
related postings.
P.S. If you want to find ANY post I ever made since 1992 and are
retrievable via groups.google.com, all you have to do is to
do an "advanced groups search" using ONLY "reef fish" as the
Author. You will find NO OTHER Reef Fish.
Reef Fish
> See how Bob Ling continues to resort to name-calling. A supposedly
> good mind is such a terrible thing to waste with a deficient
> personality.
A detailed response to this as well as a Profile for Ron Lee can be
found under the subject and thread "Profile for Ron Lee" and follow-up.
It's regrettable that a scuba report and scuba-related follow-ups
was thoroughly polluted (and terminated) by Ron Lee's gratuitous
and frivolous flame arising, according to him, from what I had
said in a DIFFRENT THREAD!
== Bob.
chilly
"Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> ronlee...@pcisys.net (Ron Lee) wrote in message
news:<4043f542...@news.pcisys.net>...
> > Bob Ling, I post your real name because your actions denigrate the
> > butiful ocean fishes.
>
> That's the lamest excuse you've used, for the second time I recall.
> What about the hundreds of times you changed the SUBJECT of a thread
> to something derogatory about Bob Ling in the NEW SUBJECT you created?
Ahahahahaa, you mean like how this thread header was high jacked by you?
>
> Littered with those in the groups.google.com archives.
As you've done numerous time before, too many times to begin to calculate?
>
> Just another proof/confirmation of Ron Lee's idiocy.
Certainly proof of *someone's* maladjustment, but it's unlikely that it is
Ron's.
> > How is it slanderous to note the FACT that your
> > name-calling is childish? Finally hitting home Bob?
>
> Yup, Ron. It was your home run alright. The LAST STRAW. The
> ultimate PROOF of your IDIOCY!
Good then, if it's the last straw, we can finally hear the end of it.
>
> Finally hitting YOUR idiocy on the HEAD of the NAIL! The slanderous
> part was all your gratuitous remarks about my wife, my family, my
> friends, and my profession as a professor!
>
> Just look up the archives. You forgot THOSE didn't you?
You mean the part where he indicated that your wife was a lovely person and
that you were obviously intelligent to have been a well-known professor, yet
you still act like a crazy person?
>
> Ron Lee will be immortalized by this and earlier Profiles as the
> Supreme Hypocrite (calling OTHERS "idiot" when he kept whining about
> himself being called an idiot) and the cheap, sleasy excuses for
> trying to carve a name for himself in the annals of scuba forums.
LOL, you are accusing another of that?!!? What a nerve . . . have you no
mirrors in your house, Reef? (no pun intended but I like it so it stays)
>
(snip more ranting)
>
> Answer: Ron Lee is an IDIOT. I am already much older than you are.
That may be so, but you are not very grown up at all.
(snip)>
> You have failed MISERABLY in your self-granised excuse.
Yes, Fish, you should certainly recognize self-aggrandizement when you see
it. You are the most self-aggrandizing person I've ever seen post anywhere.
(Now you will prove that you are not by putting up a string of URL's for old
posts of yours, ahaahhahaha)
> -- Bob. (Reef Fish, Feesh, Feeesh, da Feesh, Feeeeeeesh, etc.) --
> THESE are the name by which I post and identified by ALL
> non-idiots in ALL scuba forums, because "Reef Fish" is
> the ONLY name I have used since 1992, for reasons of
> separating my professional name from my SCUBA and SCUBA
> related postings.
Yeah? And so that's how you tried to get us to look you up in Who's Who?
>
> P.S. If you want to find ANY post I ever made since 1992 and are
> retrievable via groups.google.com, all you have to do is to
> do an "advanced groups search" using ONLY "reef fish" as the
> Author. You will find NO OTHER Reef Fish.
Well, I'll take a chance here and respond for most of the group, we don't
want to find any of your old posts. Most of us don't even bother to open
the old ones you continually post nowadays.
(snip)
Reef Fish
> Ron Lee wrote:
>
> > Bob Ling, I post your real name because your actions denigrate the
> > butiful ocean fishes. How is it slanderous to note the FACT that your
> > name-calling is childish? Finally hitting home Bob?
>
> That would be Robert F Ling. If you're going to post his name, you might as
> well get it right.
No, Lee. It would be Dr. Robert F. Ling, to you, and your hypocritical pal.
Just go to the "advanced groups search" section of
http://groups.google.com
and search rec.scuba with keywords "supreme hypocrite Lee Bell"
and you'll understand why Lee is stooping to his non-characteristic low
to add his cheap shots in defending, of all people, Ron Lee!
There are only THREE people in rec.scuba who had earned the label of
"Supreme hypocrite". TWO of them are Lee Bell AND Ron Lee, both for
their hypocritical stance on "name-calling", documented and easily
retrievable from the archives.
> A waste of time. Adding him to your blocked sender's list is a much easier
> answer.
Didn't seem to help YOU, did it, Lee Bell? You always find some SECOND
HAND snippets, such as those by Ron Lee, to put in your cheap shot. Why
do you think you have lost ALL credibility in the LIST where people knew
you longer than anyone in rec.scuba?
Lee, you'll do well to keep ME in your "blocked list" and have some
SELF CONTROL of refraining from following up on what IDIOTs say about
me, which had nothing to do with my posts (In this case, the posts
on "A Very Memorable Dive in Cozumel")
-- Bob.
Salty
<snipping>
Between you and Lee Bell... you guys are gonna catch hell now. <very
somber expression>
Lee Bell
I'm not going to catch it. Bob's been in my blocked poster's list for a
long time. The only posts I see from him are those that somebody else
choses to quote. You may notice that I don't respond negatively to his
positive posts. When he started this thread, he was doing fine, or at least
that's how it looked from the responses.
chilly
Reef Fish
> Salty wrote:
> > "chilly" <sla...@shaw.canada> wrote in message
> > news:<Wf21c.672568$ts4.160321@pd7tw3no>...
> >
> > <snipping>
> >
> > Between you and Lee Bell... you guys are gonna catch hell now. <very
> > somber expression>
No need.
Salty, Lee Bell is doing a pretty good job revealing the Mr. Hyde
side of his Dr. Jackyl personna, as well as his true intellectual
character of burying his head in the sand while taking cheap
and blind shots on what he chose not to see:
> I'm not going to catch it. Bob's been in my blocked poster's list for a
> long time. The only posts I see from him are those that somebody else
> choses to quote. You may notice that I don't respond negatively to his
> positive posts. When he started this thread, he was doing fine, or at least
> that's how it looked from the responses.
For someone who can congratulate himself on his self-characterization
above, what more needs to be said?
As for chilly, she has proven herself in more times than I care to
count that she's nothing but an obnoxious, officious, under-educated,
and under-read gnat, incapable of carrying on any scuba or non-scuba
discussion of any substance. That's all the citation chilly needs.
-- Bob.
P.S. I got back home a short while ago from the trip of the Very
Memorable Dive in Cozumel. On a repeat of the same Las
Palmas dive, we had pics of the same seahorse, probably the
same sharptail eel, eagle ray, in addition to a pair of
juvenile drumfish that we sought but not seen on the dive
described.
The P.S. is for the scuba readers who may have followed the
original post and thread to this abysmal path.
Popeye NCAT3
>As for chilly, she has proven herself in more times than I care to
>count that she's nothing but an obnoxious, officious, under-educated,
>and under-read gnat, incapable of carrying on any scuba or non-scuba
>discussion of any substance. That's all the citation chilly needs.
Popeye
"If one does as God does enough times, one
will become as God is." -Dr. Hannibal Lector.
Jason O'Rourke
>P.S. I got back home a short while ago from the trip of the Very
> Memorable Dive in Cozumel. On a repeat of the same Las
Ah, sorry to hear it. I liked the Bob who posted last week, and thought Ron
was definitely the instigator. Now it's just as it was before.
--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com
chilly
"Popeye NCAT3" <buzcu...@aol.comByteMe> wrote in message
news:20040303041534...@mb-m19.aol.com...
> >From: Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com (Reef Fish)
>
From one little man to another, eh? Going to Reef for your cites now?
Desperate times require desperate measures, I guess.
> Popeye
> Peanuts R Us
>
chilly
"Popeye NCAT3" <buzcu...@aol.comByteMe> wrote in message
news:20040303041534...@mb-m19.aol.com...
>
> >As for chilly, she has proven herself in more times than I care to
> >count that she's nothing but an obnoxious
(not any more obnoxious than Doug and Reef) though I'm certainly not proud
of that, as are they.
>officious (Doug and Reef need more mirrors in their houses) ,
>under-educated, ( because I refuse to follow all your crap and where either
of you attempt to lead, bully or coerce)
>and under-read gnat (because I don't read all your crap and/or old posts)
,
incapable of carrying on any scuba or non-scuba
> >discussion of any substance (I guess that all depends on what a person's
definition of a discussion with any substance).
> That's all the citation chilly needs. (I don't need anything from either
of you)
By the way, Doug. I thought tagging posts like this was something you found
against your rules, in others. And hey, on top of that, it's probably
"stalking" too.
> Popeye
> "Pay no attention to the Peanut behind the curtain"
>
Popeye NCAT3
>Date: 3/3/04 7:50 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <nwk1c.679466$ts4.605251@pd7tw3no>
>
>
>"Popeye NCAT3" <buzcu...@aol.comByteMe> wrote in message
>news:20040303041534...@mb-m19.aol.com...
>> >From: Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com (Reef Fish)
>>
> From one little man to another, eh?
All relative in your case.
> Going to Reef for your cites now?
Beats going to Barb.
>Desperate times require desperate measures, I guess.
You'd be the expert on being desperate.
Popeye NCAT3
>(not any more obnoxious than Doug and Reef) though I'm certainly not proud
>of that, as are they.
Where would any indication of that be?
Not your postings of late.
That's the difference between me and you.
We're the same low down gutter brawling assholes, and we use much the same
tactics to argue here.
The difference is, you deny being in the pigshit with the rest of us, even
when you're obviously very comfortable there.
What you did and are doing to Kimber is simply despicable.
>> That's all the citation chilly needs. (I don't need anything from either
>of you)
You weren't asked.
>By the way, Doug. I thought tagging posts like this was something you found
>against your rules, in others.
Cite.
Another intentional application of innuendo and outright sophistry.
> And hey, on top of that, it's probably "stalking" too.
Coming back to it after two weeks off the group would be.
So predictable.
chilly
"Popeye NCAT3" <buzcu...@aol.comByteMe> wrote in message
> >From: "chilly" sla...@shaw.canada
>
> >(not any more obnoxious than Doug and Reef) though I'm certainly not
proud
> >of that, as are they.
>
> Where would any indication of that be?
I'm not proud of it.
>
> Not your postings of late.
No, Doug, your postings of late, are still more obnoxious than mine.
>
> That's the difference between me and you.
>
> We're the same low down gutter brawling assholes, and we use much the
same
> tactics to argue here.
I use the same tactics with you.
>
> The difference is, you deny being in the pigshit with the rest of us,
even
> when you're obviously very comfortable there.
Hardly denying it Doug. I just finished saying the other day that we were
rolling around in the mud.
>
> What you did and are doing to Kimber is simply despicable.
What the heck am I doing to Kimber?
>
>
> Popeye
> "pay not attention to the Peanut behind the curtain"..
>
Lee Bell
> > >As for chilly, she has proven herself in more times than I care to
> > >count that she's nothing but an obnoxious
>
> (not any more obnoxious than Doug and Reef) though I'm certainly not proud
> of that, as are they.
Sorry, but you're not even in the running. For that matter, neither is
Doug, at least not since MJB disappeared.
Lee
Lee Bell
> > What you did and are doing to Kimber is simply despicable.
> What the heck am I doing to Kimber?
Good question. Unless it's going on off the group, I've not seen anything
recently.
Lee
Popeye NCAT3
>> >(not any more obnoxious than Doug and Reef) though I'm certainly not
>proud
>> >of that, as are they.
>>
>> Where would any indication of that be?
>
>I'm not proud of it.
It's all you post.
You must be proud of it.
>> Not your postings of late.
>
>No, Doug, your postings of late, are still more obnoxious than mine.
WWWWWhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo............HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Hhhooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.... (upgrade)
>> We're the same low down gutter brawling assholes, and we use much the
>same
>> tactics to argue here.
>
>I use the same tactics with you.
That's what I just said, duh.
>> The difference is, you deny being in the pigshit with the rest of us,
>even
>> when you're obviously very comfortable there.
>
>Hardly denying it Doug.
Check.
>> What you did and are doing to Kimber is simply despicable.
>
>What the heck am I doing to Kimber?
You know perfectly well, and your asshole buddy is in on it too, and it's
pretty low brow.
But you just admitted in black and white that's what you are.
We'd all be better off if you and Barb would just get a room.
chilly
"Popeye NCAT3" <buzcu...@aol.comByteMe> wrote in message
> >From: "chilly" sla...@shaw.canada
>
> >
> >No, Doug, your postings of late, are still more obnoxious than mine.
>
> WWWWWhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhooooo
> oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
>
> >> We're the same low down gutter brawling assholes, and we use much the
> >same
> >> tactics to argue here.
> >
> >I use the same tactics with you.
>
> That's what I just said, duh.
Not as you, Doug, when dealing with *you*.
> >
> >What the heck am I doing to Kimber?
>
> You know perfectly well, and your asshole buddy is in on it too, and
it's
> pretty low brow.
No, I don't know perfectly well. What the heck am I doing to Kimber?
>
> But you just admitted in black and white that's what you are.
I did? Come on, give me a little hint.
>
> We'd all be better off if you and Barb would just get a room.
What?
>
>
>
>
> Popeye
> "3 two-letter words for short = is it in?" - Peanuts R Us
>
Dan Bracuk, CTHD
keyboard resulting in:
:
:P.S. I got back home a short while ago from the trip of the Very
: Memorable Dive in Cozumel. On a repeat of the same Las
: Palmas dive, we had pics of the same seahorse, probably the
: same sharptail eel, eagle ray, in addition to a pair of
: juvenile drumfish that we sought but not seen on the dive
: described.
This seahorse? http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/underwater/Seahorse.htm
It was photographed at Las Palmas.
Dan Bracuk
If at first you don't succeed, you run the risk of failure.
The Best of rec.scuba http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/RecScuba/
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Forest Aten
"chilly" <sla...@shaw.canada> wrote in message
Chilly,
You guys are doing great! Keep 'em busy. There's a very nice thread that's
started....very accurately describing Tobago. It would be ashame to pollute
it with Bob's distorted perception.
Forest
chilly
"Forest Aten" <fores...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:fkA1c.34296$ko6.335676@attbi_s02...
>
> "chilly" <sla...@shaw.canada> wrote in message
> > > somber expression>
> >
> > LOL LOL
> >
> ---------------------------------------------
> Chilly,
>
> You guys are doing great! Keep 'em busy. There's a very nice thread that's
> started....very accurately describing Tobago. It would be ashame to
pollute
> it with Bob's distorted perception.
Thanks, I'll check it out.
However, as far as keeping Bob busy, he's pretty good at doing that all by
himself. Not to mention, I seem to be involved in another ongoing project
of similar nature. I usually only poke him when I'm bored.
Reef Fish
> Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com (Reef Fish) pounded away at his
> keyboard resulting in:
> :
> :P.S. I got back home a short while ago from the trip of the Very
> : Memorable Dive in Cozumel. On a repeat of the same Las
> : Palmas dive, we had pics of the same seahorse, probably the
> : same sharptail eel, eagle ray, in addition to a pair of
> : juvenile drumfish that we sought but not seen on the dive
> : described.
>
> This seahorse? http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/underwater/Seahorse.htm
>
> It was photographed at Las Palmas.
On the Mardi Gras trip 2003.
No, that's not the one. It's similar in size and body stripes except
it's DARK BROWN with similar white stripes. As soon as I get some
"Yahoo Web Posting for Dummies" tips from my friends in scuba-SE, I'll
put some its pic, the batfishes, et al. Y'all here are invited to
send such privately, to my posting (or personal) email address.
Meanwhile, I'll leaving TOMORROW for a week, to Rotan, Belize, Grand
Cayman, Majahual, and Cozumel, again. :-)
-- Bob.
-- Bob.
Reef Fish
> Chilly,
Forest, it's CAPSphobic chilly with a lc "c"! Lecture in the archives.
>
> You guys are doing great! Keep 'em busy. There's a very nice thread that's
> started....very accurately describing Tobago. It would be ashame to pollute
> it with Bob's distorted perception.
>
> Forest
The latest round started March 3, 2004. It's not yet polluted because
Forest has not yet waded in. :-))
Forest Aten, travel agent, with an acute deficiency for details, relevant
references, or archive retrieval skills is referring to THIS:
The thread itself, "Tobago", currently in rec.scuba.locations, was started
in Jul 18, 1996. (groups.google.com). The current subthread was started
in March 3, 2004. But the subtread IN QUESTION, referred to by Forest,
was started on Dec 26 2003 by iav...@earthlink.net (iav...@earthlink.net)
Forest Aten, travel agent, with an acute deficiency for details, relevant
references, or archive retrieval skills is referring to THIS:
The thread itself, "Tobago", currently in rec.scuba.locations, was started
in Jul 18, 1996. (groups.google.com). The current subthread was started
in March 3, 2004. But the subtread IN QUESTION, referred to by Forest,
was started on Dec 26 2003 by iav...@earthlink.net (iav...@earthlink.net)
HERE's the capsule of Forest Aten's impertinence on a case in which he
argued the primary subject of LANDBASED diving with everyone -- who were
said to be wrong about Tobago, by Forest, when/where Forest was trying
hard to sell his bill of goods to unwary clients.
On Dec 27, Daniel Kessler (dkes...@pop.cybernex.net) gave an INFORMED,
ACCURATE, characterization of Tobago diving:
DK> This outer fringe of the Caribbean (of which Tobago is a part),
DK> fronting on the Atlantic, has always been known as the "weaker"
DK> side of Caribbean diving.
which fetched Aten's in-depth post on Dec 29, 2003:
FA> Daniel....
FA>
FA> > Have you been to Tobago?
FA> >
FA> > Forest Aten
which of course drew my attention since I had just FINISHED a bout with
Forest, where he baselessly knocked the trip report of Chris Pflaum,
about the liveaboard week we both were on, a weak after the weak HE was
on. So, I had this to say on Dec 30, 2003, to Daniel Kessler:
RF> Forest has hardly dived ANYWHERE that has a reef! :-)
RF>
RF> He was acstatic when he saw a REEF (wow) in Tabago even though it
RF> had 20 feet visibility (once you get below 30 fsw) and a surface
RF> layer of runoff of mud (about 30 feet thick). :-) :-)
RF>
RF> When I questioned his experience in DIVING (other than conning
RF> his clients as a travel agent), he bragged about having done 600
RF> BLUE WATER dives a year.
RF>
RF> That really ruined my monitor and keyboard. I am still cleaning
RF> the coffee off!
Lady (that would be Salty in this thread) and Gentlemen (Dan, Popeye
et al in this and related threads), meet Forest Aten, travel-agent
extraordinaire who said he had led (read SENT) clients every month
since 1982 <a slight bit of hypervole> to Cozumel <that's in addition
to his other hyperbole of 600 BLUE WATER dives a year of course; not
to mention blowing his own horn (a clarinet) in a Dallas orchestra>,
and yet DID NOT KNOW where the Las Palmas dive site was!!!! (The
very site on which I posted the "Very Memorable Dive" that led to
Ron Lee's noise and THIS thread!).
Forest, even chilly brushed you off. She already KNEW, as little
as she reads, your capsulized biography above. No officious reader
in rec.scuba.* could have overlooked Forest Aten's immortal
contributions -- classic pieces of oralpedology on multiple subjects.
-- Bob.
Forest Aten
Bob,
I love how you distort just about every facet of the truth Bob .... even in
your reference to the archive. You count on people taking a lot of time to
rebutt, or not to bother at all. Bobster for "the" definitive source for
info???? It's just not worth the time Roberto.
For the record. I don't sell anything on this NG. Never have, never will.
P.S. Bob...I'm not a travel agent. That propaganda kind of reeks of the tall
tale you tried to sell about me owning some bar/rest. in Cozumel. That made
me laugh a lot. Remember?
You've gotten most of your numbers wrong again in this latest post. This
really is confirming my suspicion that most people involved in statistic are
very creative with the abusive use of numbers. You can't even quote
accurately...or get the paraphrases correct. This doesn't surprise me
either. I suspect it has to do with genetics and age. Maybe a medical
condition...or even child abuse. Kind of sad really.
You are correct in one very important aspect. It's all in the archieve. I
encourage readers interested in this discussion (I can't imagine why) to dig
in. Follow the tread in the archieve...not Bobster's distortions.
Keep that medicine intake at the right levels....you might make it till noon
without falling asleep. And those lathargic afternoons, you know the
ones.....where you are near coma...and in the hammack......hopefully will go
much better as well.
Dispite your abusive nature (we can take it Bob)...I think we may all be
doing you a favor and keeping you awake a few hours of the day.
Forest Aten
Reef Fish
> "chilly" <sla...@shaw.canada> wrote in message
> news:MFk1c.675744$X%5.420053@pd7tw2no...
> > (not any more obnoxious than Doug and Reef) though I'm certainly not proud
> > of that, as are they.
Lee Bell, Man armed with cheap and blind shots, unaware (since his
head was
in the sand) that he had already shot his own foot once, in this
thread, in:
RF> Salty, Lee Bell is doing a pretty good job revealing the Mr. Hyde
RF> side of his Dr. Jackyl personna, as well as his true intellectual
RF> character of burying his head in the sand while taking cheap
RF> and blind shots on what he chose not to see:
Lee> I'm not going to catch it. Bob's been in my blocked poster's
list for a
Lee> long time. The only posts I see from him are those that somebody
else
Lee> choses to quote. You may notice that I don't respond negatively
to his
Lee> positive posts. When he started this thread, he was doing fine,
or at Lee> least that's how it looked from the responses.
RF> For someone who can congratulate himself on his
self-characterization
RF> above, what more needs to be said?
Now Lee is back to continue his cheap and blind shot, not having read
ANYTHING I've posted (except in negative snippets by others),
continued:
Lee> Sorry, but you're not even in the running. For that matter,
neither
Lee> Doug, at least not since MJB disappeared.
Lee>
Lee> Lee
Well. THIS much more can be said:
Confucius say, "Man who stick head in sand to make cheap shot
don't see own foot hit by own shot. Everyone
else see."
-- Bob.
Dan Bracuk, CTHD
keyboard resulting in:
:Cayman, Majahual, and Cozumel, again. :-)
Sounds like a cruise. Heckuva lotta places to go in one week.
Reef Fish
> Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com (Reef Fish) pounded away at his
> keyboard resulting in:
> :Meanwhile, I'll leaving TOMORROW for a week, to Rotan, Belize, Grand
> :Cayman, Majahual, and Cozumel, again. :-)
>
> Sounds like a cruise. Heckuva lotta places to go in one week.
Except for the misspelling of Roatan, that's actually the daily
itinerary for the week. I did the same cruise last month.
I don't have the slightest idea what I did, but ... between samples
of how to put up pictures on Yahoo sent to me by two readers in
Scuba-SE, I sudderly have this:
http://f1.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/large_nassau_grouper/my_photos
One pic is the batfish taken by Sue on Feb 28.
The other pic was in the sample sent to me -- it already
contained the Sue's retirement cake -- decorated with her
picture in scuba gear in vivid colors of edible cake topping
creme. :-)
Sorry, as I said, I didn't have the slightest idea what I did.
The dark brown seahorse from Las Palmas will have to wait until
I know the link is publicly viewable AND what I am doing.
-- Bob.
Reef Fish
> "Dan Bracuk, CTHD" <NOTb...@pathcom.com> wrote in message news:<lh0d40djs2o3g2pna...@4ax.com>...
> > Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com (Reef Fish) pounded away at his
> > keyboard resulting in:
> > :
> > :P.S. I got back home a short while ago from the trip of the Very
> > : Memorable Dive in Cozumel. On a repeat of the same Las
> > : Palmas dive, we had pics of the same seahorse, probably the
> > : same sharptail eel, eagle ray, in addition to a pair of
> > : juvenile drumfish that we sought but not seen on the dive
> > : described.
> >
> > This seahorse? http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/underwater/Seahorse.htm
> >
> > It was photographed at Las Palmas.
>
> On the Mardi Gras trip 2003.
>
> No, that's not the one. It's similar in size and body stripes except
> it's DARK BROWN with similar white stripes. As soon as I get some
> "Yahoo Web Posting for Dummies" tips from my friends in scuba-SE, I'll
> put some its pic, the batfishes, et al.
http://f1.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/large_nassau_grouper/my_photos
Pix on both 2-25 and 3-1 were taken at Las Palmas, Cozumel.
-- Bob.
Reef Fish
> Bob,
>
> I love how you distort just about every facet of the truth Bob .... even in
> your reference to the archive.
The present post by Forest is a perfect illustration of what I had said:
RF> Forest Aten, travel agent, with an acute deficiency for details,
RF> relevant references, or archive retrieval skills is referring to
and I gave very explicit references.
Forest, did you give ANY archive reference to back your claims?
> P.S. Bob...I'm not a travel agent. That propaganda kind of reeks
Let me help you out Forest, with some reference to what YOU posted,
which made it unmistable and unequivocal that you ARE a travel agent!
In flaming Chris Pflaum for his Tobago liveaboard trip post, Forest Aten wrote,
FA> Chris,
FA>
FA> I put together and run trips even
FA> when I am "blowing my horn".....hahahhahaha
FA>
FA> Was there ever a question about me being in the SCUBA travel business????
FA> I told you that the boat the week before you was full of people that
FA> were in the dive travel business (including me), I told you that I sold
FA> trips, that I supervised divers in the water and and and.......hahahahaha
FA> Many people on the NG know that I own a SCUBA tour operation.
Elsewhere,
FA> Bob,
FA>
FA> You're fishing for the bio? hahahhaha
FA>
FA> I've been running a SCUBA tour business since 1982.
So, Forest owns a travel business. He books and runs trips for people
to dive in Tobago, Cozumel, etc.
Now he whines that I DISTORT everything in my posts and calls him
a "travel agent". :-)
> You can't even quote
> accurately...or get the paraphrases correct. This doesn't surprise me
> either. I suspect it has to do with genetics and age. Maybe a medical
> condition...or even child abuse. Kind of sad really.
Well, I QUOTED you above. Did I not "quote accurately"? Did I err
and distort your business by calling you a "travel agent"?
> You are correct in one very important aspect. It's all in the archieve.
That's right! And Forest Aten just never QUOTES any of them, but rants
his way while dispensing ad hominem attacks such as "genetic and age.
May be a medical condition ... or even child abuse."
Was that meant to be YOUR autobiography? ;^)
> Dispite your abusive nature (we can take it Bob)...I think we may all be
> doing you a favor and keeping you awake a few hours of the day.
>
> Forest Aten
Sure. I club heads like yours because you DESERVE it. Been doing it
in scuba forums since the late 1980s. It's all in the archives! :-)
Now I'll get a little bit of rest, and will be on my way to a wonderful
week of crusing -- while I have FREE internet access on the cruiseship
to keep an eye on scoundrels like Forest Aten in lying out of his
teeth even on what he had posted about himself!
FA> I put together and run trips even
FA> when I am "blowing my horn".....hahahhahaha
.....hahahhahaha back to you Forest.
-- Bob.
Reef Fish
> Bob,
>
> I love how you distort just about every facet of the truth Bob .... even in
> your reference to the archive.
The present post by Forest is a perfect illustration of what I had said:
RF> Forest Aten, travel agent, with an acute deficiency for details,
RF> relevant references, or archive retrieval skills is referring to
and I gave very explicit references.
Forest, did you give ANY archive reference to back your claims?
> P.S. Bob...I'm not a travel agent. That propaganda kind of reeks
Let me help you out Forest, with some reference to what YOU posted,
which made it unmistable and unequivocal that you ARE a travel agent!
In flaming Chris Pflaum for his Tobago liveaboard trip post, Forest Aten wrote,
FA> Chris,
FA>
FA> I put together and run trips even
FA> when I am "blowing my horn".....hahahhahaha
FA>
FA> Was there ever a question about me being in the SCUBA travel business????
FA> I told you that the boat the week before you was full of people that
FA> were in the dive travel business (including me), I told you that I sold
FA> trips, that I supervised divers in the water and and and.......hahahahaha
FA> Many people on the NG know that I own a SCUBA tour operation.
Elsewhere,
FA> Bob,
FA>
FA> You're fishing for the bio? hahahhaha
FA>
FA> I've been running a SCUBA tour business since 1982.
So, Forest owns a travel business. He books and runs trips for people
to dive in Tobago, Cozumel, etc.
Now he whines that I DISTORT everything in my posts and calls him
a "travel agent". :-)
> You can't even quote
> accurately...or get the paraphrases correct. This doesn't surprise me
> either. I suspect it has to do with genetics and age. Maybe a medical
> condition...or even child abuse. Kind of sad really.
Well, I QUOTED you above. Did I not "quote accurately"? Did I err
and distort your business by calling you a "travel agent"?
> You are correct in one very important aspect. It's all in the archieve.
That's right! And Forest Aten just never QUOTES any of them, but rants
his way while dispensing ad hominem attacks such as "genetic and age.
May be a medical condition ... or even child abuse."
Was that meant to be YOUR autobiography? ;^)
> Dispite your abusive nature (we can take it Bob)...I think we may all be
> doing you a favor and keeping you awake a few hours of the day.
>
> Forest Aten
Sure. I club heads like yours because you DESERVE it. Been doing it
Ron Lee
Actually Jason I was not. Bob Ling made his typical childish
name-calling in another post that I read just before his positive one.
It started the current round of "deja vu all over again" with ZERO
instigation by me. I just point out his problems with a goal of
helping him become a valued member of society.
Ron Lee
Ron Lee
>
>Glad to see that someone else thinks Ron Lee is an idiot. :D
>
And you are who?
Ron Lee
rwjg40
It seems to me that if you bring a beef that you have with someone on
another thread into this one, within the context of this thread you have
fired the first shot and cast yourself in the role of instigator. No
one who hasn't read that other thread knows what you are reacting to, so
from here it looks like a vandetta on your part. YMMV, but that's the
way I see it.
Gordon in Austin
Ron Lee
Gordon, Bob's tactic of using name-calling in his posts is well know.
The original post on a nice dive was atypical and since I had just
read his other post Bob (who started the name calling with no
provocation) was the real instigator. If a few people who do not know
Bob seeme as the original problem....they will learn soon enough what
the facts are. Just read other posts from Bob or go back a while and
read some. It won't take long for even his family members to realize
that his behavior is childish, immature and out of control.
Ron Lee
Reef Fish
> Gordon's response at bottom.
> >
Ron Lee's excuse was a comment I made, NOT to Ron Lee, but to Arne,
the original Aldora IDIOT, about Arne's (rumor) post that LU is out of
business (not true).
Ron Lee has been WHINING about me calling him an IDIOT because of his
original LU post and HIS follow-up.
This thread has already run its polluted course. Since Ron Lee is
using my comment about the "original" LU post that led him to whine
and throw dirt in the "A Very Memorable Dive in Cozumnel", it is
only appropriate to debunk Ron Lee's excuse in a separate thread:
Ron Lee's childish LU excuse debunked
-- Bob.
H. Huntzinger
>
> I don't have the slightest idea what I did, but ... between samples
> of how to put up pictures on Yahoo sent to me by two readers in
> Scuba-SE, I sudderly have this:
>
> [change to corrected URL of]
http://f1.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/large_nassau_grouper/album?.tok=phJtyvAB
WeTWCYmU&.dir=/1151&.src=ph
> One pic is the batfish taken by Sue on Feb 28.
Egads, its tiny! The batfish I've seen have been a foot or so long.
> The other pic was in the sample sent to me -- it already
> contained the Sue's retirement cake -- decorated with her
> picture in scuba gear in vivid colors of edible cake topping
> creme. :-)
Didn't see anything that looked like a retirement cake for Sue. But
glad to hear that Sue's doing OK and that she's away from the 9-5 grind.
> Sorry, as I said, I didn't have the slightest idea what I did.
> The dark brown seahorse from Las Palmas will have to wait until
> I know the link is publicly viewable AND what I am doing.
As I was late to the thread, apparently some of those issues have been
solved, as there's now a brown seahorse as photo#4. BTW, a couple of
these 8 photo's would benefit substantially from a little bit of Adobe
Photoshop retouching and/or cropping...if you're interested, let me know
and I'll give it a few minutes.
-hh
PS for Dan B: that's an excellent seahorse photo at the URL you posted
(http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/underwater/Seahorse.htm)
Reef Fish
Hugh, as you noted, you caught some obsolete posts in the first rounds
of my attempts in putting up some "mug shots" for others to see what
a BATFISH looks like.
All of the pix were INTENDED to be "we saw these" MUG shots, not "look
what artistic shots we had composed." Else, I would have gone to a
photo list or elsewhere to show them.
> http://f1.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/large_nassau_grouper/album?.tok=phJtyvAB
> WeTWCYmU&.dir=/1151&.src=ph
>
>
> > One pic is the batfish taken by Sue on Feb 28.
>
> Egads, its tiny! The batfish I've seen have been a foot or so long.
It was taken on Feb 25 actually, as indicated in the pic itself.
The red-lipped batfishes I saw in Coco's Island were about the same
size or smaller. I am sure you saw a batfish of a different species.
As they say, "It' not the size that counts." :-)
I have actually seen a batfish 6 feet long -- but that's on a giant
projection screen. :) Another one even larger, in an IMAX screen
of 7 stories tall. :-))
> > The other pic was in the sample sent to me -- it already
> > contained the Sue's retirement cake -- decorated with her
> > picture in scuba gear in vivid colors of edible cake topping
> > creme. :-)
>
> Didn't see anything that looked like a retirement cake for Sue. But
> glad to hear that Sue's doing OK and that she's away from the 9-5 grind.
Neither Wayne McKensey (who sent it to me) nor I knew how it got there.
It was her retirement pic in 2001. It still remain a mystery. You can't
see it for the same reason EARLIER nobody could see any of the pics you
can see now, because the folder had not been identified as one to be
shared with the public.
>
>
> > Sorry, as I said, I didn't have the slightest idea what I did.
> > The dark brown seahorse from Las Palmas will have to wait until
> > I know the link is publicly viewable AND what I am doing.
>
> As I was late to the thread, apparently some of those issues have been
> solved, as there's now a brown seahorse as photo#4.
Actually there are TWO pix of the SAME brown seahorse. One is the
very well camouflaged "mug shot" taken on Feb 25. If you look VERY
carefully, you can see its head on the top left corner, and its LONG
body and tail stretch all the way to the right bottom corner of that
pic.
The very easily identified brown one was the SAME seahorse, taken at
the same location on March 1, without the background in which it
chose to hide.
> BTW, a couple of
> these 8 photo's would benefit substantially from a little bit of Adobe
> Photoshop retouching and/or cropping...
I knew that. See my "mug shot" comment at the beginning.
> if you're interested, let me know
> and I'll give it a few minutes.
>
>
> -hh
By all means. I DO HAVE the Adobe PhotoShop Version 7.0, though not
the requisite skills in using it for image polishing other than
having followed Bjorn Vang Jensen's articles in e-nekton.com online
magazine on HOW, for newbies.
But one thing I DO know is that the ones you see are .jpg images
that HAD been cropped to the present sizes (about 1/6 of the original
digital pix). As such some of the enhanceable qualities had already
been lost from the .TIFF format the editing SHOULD have been done.
So, whatever you can do with the ones you see had already been greatly
degraded.
>
>
> PS for Dan B: that's an excellent seahorse photo at the URL you posted
> (http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/underwater/Seahorse.htm)
I actually have MUCH better quality pix of the same yellow seahorse Dan
showed because Dan's was taken with the same POS digital camera Sue has,
and two different DMs had much better "professional" quality shots of
that same seahorse of which I have the pix. When I get home, I can
send you and Dan copies of those pix for comparison.
Of course if you want to see REALLY good pix of seahorses, you should
go to Steve Norwich's webpage. Steve had gone to St. Vincent and found
27 DIFFERENT species of seahorses, photo'd all of them and showed
several on his web.
I am at the Internet Cafe of the Grand Princess cruiseship now. I finally
cruised enough to have earned a "Platinum" status for free use of this
internet access which others pay $30 an hour. But I can't retrieve
anything from my personal computers at home or here.
-- Bob.
rwjg40
>
> Gordon's response at bottom.
>
> Gordon, Bob's tactic of using name-calling in his posts is well know.
> The original post on a nice dive was atypical and since I had just
> read his other post Bob (who started the name calling with no
> provocation) was the real instigator. If a few people who do not know
> Bob seeme as the original problem....they will learn soon enough what
> the facts are. Just read other posts from Bob or go back a while and
> read some. It won't take long for even his family members to realize
> that his behavior is childish, immature and out of control.
It doesn't matter. I still believe it to be a breach of netiquette to
bring over a conflict from another thread. Even if all the old threads
are in play, it's still impossible to determine who started it, and
who's right, and who is "the original problem", and who cares, anyway?
It's not like you don't know exactly how he's going to react when you
poke him, is it? You don't seriously believe that your methods of
dealing with him will ever change his curmudgeonly ways, do you? The
fact is, this time we were having a civil discussion about stuff we
actually care about until you came in with some vitriol from another
thread, after which things predictably (once again) spiraled down into a
frenzy of ad hominem attacks. I'm not saying that RF is blameless; I
don't think he should have fired one off at Forest Aten, either, who was
up until that point (within the context of this thread) a bystander.
But one thing that I don't know if any of you really grasp is that
nobody except you guys really cares who calls whom what name, or who's
being more childish, or who's an IDIOT. You guys speak about each other
in the third person as if you believe that the rest of us are actually
trying to judge who's right and who's wrong. We're not. We really
don't care. I read your interplay with the same detachment as that
which I maintain while watching TV characters in a sitcom argue.
Somtimes it's funny.
Gordon in Austin
Dan Bracuk, CTHD
keyboard resulting in:
:showed because Dan's was taken with the same POS digital camera Sue has,
:and two different DMs had much better "professional" quality shots of
:that same seahorse of which I have the pix. When I get home, I can
:send you and Dan copies of those pix for comparison.
Could be the camera, could be the photographer. Lotsa people out
there who are better underwater photogs than I am.
Jason O'Rourke
>Could be the camera, could be the photographer. Lotsa people out
>there who are better underwater photogs than I am.
Perhaps, Dan, but some cameras make it much easier than others. My canon
is about as automatic as a digital can be. It's only flaw is the shutter
lag.
Mike from Ottawa
Which Canon is that, Jason?
---
Mike from Ottawa
Lee Bell
> Ron Lee wrote:
>>
>> Gordon's response at bottom.
>>
>> Gordon, Bob's tactic of using name-calling in his posts is well
>> know. The original post on a nice dive was atypical and since I had
>> just read his other post Bob (who started the name calling with no
>> provocation) was the real instigator. If a few people who do not
>> know Bob seeme as the original problem....they will learn soon
>> enough what the facts are. Just read other posts from Bob or go
>> back a while and read some. It won't take long for even his family
>> members to realize that his behavior is childish, immature and out
>> of control.
>
> It doesn't matter. I still believe it to be a breach of netiquette to
> bring over a conflict from another thread. Even if all the old
> threads are in play, it's still impossible to determine who started
> it, and who's right, and who is "the original problem", and who
> cares, anyway?
Bob routinely takes things from this forum to others and, occasionally, from
other forums to this one. While I can't say he doesn't, I've not seen Ron
do the same. As for deciding who started what, well, most of us already
know the answer to that one. Name calling is Bob's favorite refuge when a
discussion isn't going his way.
> It's not like you don't know exactly how he's going to react when you
> poke him, is it?
We chose not to abide a bully. Ron continues to read Bob's posts for
reasons he considers appropriate. I chose to put Bob in my blocked sender's
list. He's the only person in it.
> But one thing that I don't know if any of you really grasp is that
> nobody except you guys really cares who calls whom what name, or who's
> being more childish, or who's an IDIOT.
If you don't care, don't read the thread. Some do.
Lee
Jason O'Rourke
>>Perhaps, Dan, but some cameras make it much easier than others. My canon
>>is about as automatic as a digital can be. It's only flaw is the shutter
>>lag.
>
>Which Canon is that, Jason?
the S400, now just replaced by the 430 (same, but perhaps a tad cheaper
and has VGA resolution video for 30s). It's not the best canon P&S to
pick for UW, but topside it's the smallest. It offers very limited manual
controls which can make some setups tricky due to the auto focus. It's,
otoh, very good at doing distance shots in the clear blue water, at least
for those who just want to click and go.
Reef Fish
> rwjg40 wrote:
> > Ron Lee wrote:
> >>
> >> Gordon's response at bottom.
> > It doesn't matter. I still believe it to be a breach of netiquette to
> > bring over a conflict from another thread. Even if all the old
> > threads are in play, it's still impossible to determine who started
> > it, and who's right, and who is "the original problem", and who
> > cares, anyway?
Gordon was absolutely on target!
Lee, who bragged about having kill-filed my posts FOR MONTHS, and prides
himself in reading only snippets from flamers, such as Ron Lee, and
others, had this to shoot his own foot once more:
>
> Bob routinely takes things from this forum to others and, occasionally, from
> other forums to this one. While I can't say he doesn't, I've not seen Ron
> do the same. As for deciding who started what, well, most of us already
> know the answer to that one. Name calling is Bob's favorite refuge when a
> discussion isn't going his way.
For one who has NOT read 99% of what *I* posted (only the less than 1%
cited by others), Lee sure is quick to display his prejudiced ignorance.
>
> > It's not like you don't know exactly how he's going to react when you
> > poke him, is it?
>
> We chose not to abide a bully. Ron continues to read Bob's posts for
> reasons he considers appropriate. I chose to put Bob in my blocked sender's
> list. He's the only person in it.
It you don't read what I post, then what entitles YOU to take cheap and
BLIND shots against what you DIDN'T read and have ZERO knowledge about?
That's the Mr. Hyde in Lee Bell's Dr. Jackyll howling again.
>
> > But one thing that I don't know if any of you really grasp is that
> > nobody except you guys really cares who calls whom what name, or who's
> > being more childish, or who's an IDIOT.
>
> If you don't care, don't read the thread. Some do.
>
> Lee
And some are stupid enough to brag that they don't, but can't resist
taking CHEAP and BLIND shots with their heads in the sand.
As for name-calling, it doesn't seem to bother Lee (as a Hypocrite
Supreme) to call me "an asshole's asshole" in several of his CHEAP
SHOTS.
Lee, WE are all pound of you to EXPOSE YOURSELF for what you are!
-- Bob.
Reef Fish
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 03:01:04 +0000 (UTC), j...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu
> (Jason O'Rourke) wrote:
>
> >Dan Bracuk, CTHD <NOTb...@pathcom.com> wrote:
> >>Could be the camera, could be the photographer. Lotsa people out
> >>there who are better underwater photogs than I am.
Dan is being unduly modest.
> >Perhaps, Dan, but some cameras make it much easier than others.
That's an understattement of the decade in this ng.
There's an extended thread amongst PHOTOGRAPHERS, Pros, and Experts,
including those who won numerous prizes in photos and writing articles
for magazines, who have driven this point even to neophyte NON-photogs
like myself.
Dan's (and my wife's) ReefMaster Digital is known as a POS, the lowest
possible quality UW digital camera there ever existed! :-)
I know of NO digital camera for UW photography that had been said to
be worse than ours.
Thus, "you can't squeeze blood out of turnip" clearly applies.
> >My canon
> >is about as automatic as a digital can be. It's only flaw is the shutter
> >lag.
ANY Canon is superior. It's the HOUSING that made these expensive and
out of the range of most casual photogs such as my wife.
> ---
> Mike from Ottawa
-- Bob.
Dan Bracuk, CTHD
keyboard resulting in:
:be worse than ours.
Doesn't make it a bad camera though. It is definetly low end, and
doesn't do well on the surface in low light.
But I like my underwater shots and I get lots of oohs and ahhs from
people at work and bowling, which is what it is really all about
anyway.
Jason O'Rourke
>ANY Canon is superior. It's the HOUSING that made these expensive and
>out of the range of most casual photogs such as my wife.
The housing is only about $170. The camera is now down to close to $300,
and there are cheaper older models. Definitely a bit more than my
aquashot setups, but not outrageous if people have the digital already.
It's just about whether the risk of losing the camera is too much.
To do it right with the strobe, we're getting pretty close to 1000 or more
and that is a bit steep for casual use.
Ron Lee
>
>We chose not to abide a bully. Ron continues to read Bob's posts for
>reasons he considers appropriate. I chose to put Bob in my blocked sender's
>list. He's the only person in it.
>Lee
I need to think about this. Perhaps I have some sort of chemical
inbalance that makes me read his posts when odds are that they are
not worth reading.
I will cogitate on this while flying in the morning and watching the
sunrise....then to the west to the Rockies. Best thing available
since there are no roses nearby to smell.
Thanks Lee. You may have saved me from a life full of bitterness and
pitiful self-aggrandizement where I resort to belittling others with
childish name-calling in a futile attempt to show the world that I am
superior. Fortunately no one else on this group has not already
fallen into this quagmire :)
Ron Lee
H. Huntzinger
> >
> > if you're interested, let me know
> > and I'll give it a few minutes.
> >
> >
> > -hh
>
> By all means. I DO HAVE the Adobe PhotoShop Version 7.0, though not
> the requisite skills in using it for image polishing other than
> having followed Bjorn Vang Jensen's articles in e-nekton.com online
> magazine on HOW, for newbies.
>
> But one thing I DO know is that the ones you see are .jpg images
> that HAD been cropped to the present sizes (about 1/6 of the original
> digital pix). As such some of the enhanceable qualities had already
> been lost from the .TIFF format the editing SHOULD have been done.
>
> So, whatever you can do with the ones you see had already been greatly
> degraded.
Done. There's four files dated yesterday temporarily in directory:
http://www.huntzinger.com/dive/strokes/critters/
I've made the filenames self-explanatory for what was done in Photoshop.
For example:
http://www.huntzinger.com/dive/strokes/critters/batfish_autolevel.jpg
...means that just the "Autolevel" function (IMAGE / ADJUSTMENTS / AUTO
LEVELS) was applied to the batfish photo.
Except for the extensive RGB tweaking I did on the eel, I would have
figured that any basic "How To" article probably should have covered the
rest of what was done.
The two photos that aren't here are the turtle (no changes needed) and
the other seahorse shot (absolutely hopeless...recommend trash).
BTW, cropping is not down-sampling, nor vice versa, even for persons who
equates average with mean. For an example of cropping, see the lobster
image.
-hh
Reef Fish
> Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com (Reef Fish) pounded away at his
> keyboard resulting in:
> :I know of NO digital camera for UW photography that had been said to
> :be worse than ours.
>
> Doesn't make it a bad camera though. It is definetly low end, and
> doesn't do well on the surface in low light.
It's all RELATIVE. As in your own explanation below:
>
> But I like my underwater shots and I get lots of oohs and ahhs from
> people at work and bowling,
I get oohs and ahhs on the unedited photos, printed on PLAIN PAPER,
from a cheap printer on those seahorse and other photos.
> which is what it is really all about anyway.
Perhaps. But I could tell those pix are orders of magnitude inferior
to the pix from an MX-10 (point and shoot), and Sue even has an
external strobe added to the ReefMaster.
Amateur photogs like Hugh Huntzinger would sneer at the poor quality
of the digital shots compared to what they can get out of their
cheap Nikonos and strobes, after Photo Shop editing.
Semi-Pros and Pros (with the EXPENSIVE Nikonos) and expensive strobes
are the ones who rightly call our camera a POS, and ever slightly
higher ends like Jason O'Rourke's Canon POS's because they are,
relative to what one can get with a modicum of investment in equipment
and a modicum of shooting skill with the middle to upper end of
equipment.
IMHO, THAT's what UW photography is all about.
I'm actually satisfied to be in the POS end, with friends and amateurs
oohing and gawking at the "mug shots" of seahorses, mantas, eagle rays,
sharks or all kinds, etc., etc.
When I look for REAL UW photos of the same, I go to magazines, and
photo books, to gawk at pix of Norbert Wu, the Church's, and other
famed photogs, and even those of Paul Humann and Steve Norvich. :-)
-- Bob.
Reef Fish
> Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com (Reef Fish) wrote:
> > >
> > > if you're interested, let me know
> > > and I'll give it a few minutes.
> > >
> > >
> > > -hh
> >
> > By all means. I DO HAVE the Adobe PhotoShop Version 7.0, though not
> > the requisite skills in using it for image polishing other than
> > having followed Bjorn Vang Jensen's articles in e-nekton.com online
> > magazine on HOW, for newbies.
> >
> > But one thing I DO know is that the ones you see are .jpg images
> > that HAD been cropped to the present sizes (about 1/6 of the original
> > digital pix). As such some of the enhanceable qualities had already
> > been lost from the .TIFF format the editing SHOULD have been done.
> >
> > So, whatever you can do with the ones you see had already been greatly
> > degraded.
>
>
> Done. There's four files dated yesterday temporarily in directory:
>
>
> http://www.huntzinger.com/dive/strokes/critters/
Do you think ANYONE could NOT have identified the same creatures from
the original set, but from yours?
> The two photos that aren't here are the turtle (no changes needed) and
> the other seahorse shot (absolutely hopeless...recommend trash).
I didn't HAVE to show the seahorse you recommended to trash. It was
shown specifically for the PURPOSE of seeing HOW WELL they are
camouflaged in the natural environment, without being moved to a
clear background and with picture doctored by amateurs.
You miss the point completely! Look CAREFULL at how the body and
tail blends into the mess of natural background that blends into the
colors of the seahorse.
> BTW, cropping is not down-sampling, nor vice versa, even for persons who
> equates average with mean. For an example of cropping, see the lobster
> image.
>
>
>
> -hh
Again, you missed the point about PHOTOGRAPH editing! EVERY TIME you save
an image to .jpg format (whether you crop or not), the photo had already
been COMPRESSED (you CAN'T control it, with PhotoShop or anything else).
Thus, EVERY TIME you save or re-save a pic in .jpg format, you lose a
little bit of clarity and quality.
I thought EVERYONE knew that. Didn't you, Hugh?
Go read Bjorn's article in e-nekton.com magazine. You undoubtedly will
learn a few things you didn't know even though you use PhotoShop.
-- Bob.
H. Huntzinger
> > Done. There's four files dated yesterday temporarily in directory:
> >
> >
> > http://www.huntzinger.com/dive/strokes/critters/
>
> Do you think ANYONE could NOT have identified the same creatures from
> the original set, but from yours?
I merely named them something that was convenient for me while I was
working on them. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, bubba.
> > The two photos that aren't here are the turtle (no changes needed) and
> > the other seahorse shot (absolutely hopeless...recommend trash).
>
> I didn't HAVE to show the seahorse you recommended to trash. It was
> shown specifically for the PURPOSE of seeing HOW WELL they are
> camouflaged in the natural environment, without being moved to a
> clear background and with picture doctored by amateurs.
Yes, seahorses hide well. And that photo might have been able to
illustrate that if it hadn't been hopelessly out of focus.
> > BTW, cropping is not down-sampling, nor vice versa, even for persons who
> > equates average with mean. For an example of cropping, see the lobster
> > image.
>
> Again, you missed the point about PHOTOGRAPH editing! EVERY TIME you save
> an image to .jpg format (whether you crop or not), the photo had already
> been COMPRESSED (you CAN'T control it, with PhotoShop or anything else).
>
> Thus, EVERY TIME you save or re-save a pic in .jpg format, you lose a
> little bit of clarity and quality.
>
> I thought EVERYONE knew that. Didn't you, Hugh?
You're just digging yourself a deeper hole. You used incorrect
nomenclature for cropping vs. downsampling; neither has anything to do
with .JPG's being a lossy format. Unless you're going to recant all of
your past pendant flames on "Average", you're taking some of your own
medicine here on your incorrect application of photographic terminology.
-hh
Groofle Gambini
dude was cool enough to post the pics of his trip while others want to
fuck it up for him by berating his picture taking. Pack fucking sand,
gimps. If you want to give an honest HELPFUL critique then do so...
don't make it into a beatdown and have the dude feel less proud of the
pictures he took just because your fatheads THINK you can take better
pictures. Who gives a fuck if you work for National Georgraphic or
for a dive magazine. The point is to share the experiences of your
dives. Not everyone here may be up to the same level as you, or your
equpiment, which means don't talk down to them.
Jack Sloan
"Groofle Gambini" <g...@jewbienation.com> wrote in message
news:umr050d0k1keeqlbk...@4ax.com...
You new to newsgroups in general...or just this one?
Jack<G>
Dan Bracuk, CTHD
keyboard resulting in:
:an image to .jpg format (whether you crop or not), the photo had already
:been COMPRESSED (you CAN'T control it, with PhotoShop or anything else).
:
:Thus, EVERY TIME you save or re-save a pic in .jpg format, you lose a
:little bit of clarity and quality.
:
:I thought EVERYONE knew that. Didn't you, Hugh?
I knew that, but, on the last batch of pictures, I forgot. Oh well.
Luca Cappelli
"Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8fb7380b.0403...@posting.google.com...
> Again, you missed the point about PHOTOGRAPH editing! EVERY TIME you save
> an image to .jpg format (whether you crop or not), the photo had already
> been COMPRESSED (you CAN'T control it, with PhotoShop or anything else).
>
> Thus, EVERY TIME you save or re-save a pic in .jpg format, you lose a
> little bit of clarity and quality.
>
> I thought EVERYONE knew that. Didn't you, Hugh?
Actually, if I understand your comments, half of them are false. Saving *to*
jpeg from another uncompressed format does result in data loss (although
does not necessarily result in image degradation, by virtue of the way the
pixel approximations saved). Saving or resaving *in* jpeg will only result
in data manipulation if you altered the file. You can open, save, re-save,
rename, move and copy jpegs without any degradation at all if you haven't
edited the image. Additionally if you are editing a jpeg file and re-saving
it, even numerous times, during the session, but not closing it, you will
not *accumulate* quality loss either....so obviously, try to complete all
editing in one session, keeping the file open, and using the "Save" function
as needed to protect your changes.
One thing to be aware of though...some photo editors will *re-compress* jpeg
files when using the "Save As", "Move", or "Copy" functions so (unless you
are absolutely certain of how your editor handles these functions) for
renaming, moving or copying jpegs, or doing all that to other locations, it
is best to make those changes in File Manager, Windows Explorer or the Apple
or Linux equivalent.
Groofle Gambini
wrote:
nah.. just sick of idiots like yourself.
Penny S
so then you know it's useless to complain, right? (but you feel better)
penny
Jack Sloan
Ya probably otta go away then ...there are a bunch here like me. You won't
like it much.
Jack
Groofle Gambini
<pennys...@cetinvalid.com> wrote:
>
>so then you know it's useless to complain, right? (but you feel better)
>
>penny
sometimes idiots don't know what their doing.. and they need it
pointed it. It has nothing to do with me.
Groofle Gambini
wrote:
>
>Ya probably otta go away then ...there are a bunch here like me. You won't
>like it much.
>Jack
>
Nah.. I've been here awhile and will continue to stick around. You'll
just have to deal with someone who finally could finally calls a spade
a spade and rip into the occasional assclown with a god complex. So
with that... carry on, gimpnuts.
Jason O'Rourke
>Nah.. I've been here awhile and will continue to stick around. You'll
>just have to deal with someone who finally could finally calls a spade
>a spade and rip into the occasional assclown with a god complex. So
>with that... carry on, gimpnuts.
Whoa- he's like the pale shadow of the second cousin of bullshark!
Salty
> Actually, if I understand your comments, half of them are false. Saving *to*
> jpeg from another uncompressed format does result in data loss (although
> does not necessarily result in image degradation, by virtue of the way the
> pixel approximations saved). Saving or resaving *in* jpeg will only result
> in data manipulation if you altered the file. You can open, save, re-save,
> rename, move and copy jpegs without any degradation at all if you haven't
> edited the image. Additionally if you are editing a jpeg file and re-saving
> it, even numerous times, during the session, but not closing it, you will
> not *accumulate* quality loss either....so obviously, try to complete all
> editing in one session, keeping the file open, and using the "Save" function
> as needed to protect your changes.
> One thing to be aware of though...some photo editors will *re-compress* jpeg
> files when using the "Save As", "Move", or "Copy" functions so (unless you
> are absolutely certain of how your editor handles these functions) for
> renaming, moving or copying jpegs, or doing all that to other locations, it
> is best to make those changes in File Manager, Windows Explorer or the Apple
> or Linux equivalent.
'Adobe' and 'Nikon View' here. In fact, any pics that I take with
my Nikon, I can readily change in 'Nikon View'. It's a very nice
program.
Chris Guynn
When that person shows up, let me know.
Groofle Gambini
and with that, you can get off my nutsack.
Groofle Gambini
buy your own mirror and get off the fuckin subject already.
Chris Guynn
What happened to ripping into the occasional as? And, incidentally, how do
you expect to use a god complex to do that anyway?
Chris Guynn
"Chris Guynn" <chris...@sbcglobal.N.O.S.P.A.M.net> wrote in message
news:sum4c.9078$Qg2...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
Sorry, that should be "What happened to ripping into the occasional
assclown?"
Jack Sloan
Groofle Gambini
<chris...@sbcglobal.N.O.S.P.A.M.net> wrote:
>
>
>What happened to ripping into the occasional as? And, incidentally, how do
>you expect to use a god complex to do that anyway?
>
the last part didn't make sense... try again.
Groofle Gambini
<chris...@sbcglobal.N.O.S.P.A.M.net> wrote:
so far it's been the assclowns that have decided to respond to my call
to normalcy and use the newsgroup for what it was intended and not
some cockfight. It was refreshing to see a few actually carry on this
thread by bringing up Photoshop and Nikons. Carry on.
Groofle Gambini
wrote:
>
>"Groofle Gambini" <g...@jewbienation.com> wrote in message
>news:qtm35053htmgp2lt6...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 11:49:13 +0000 (UTC), j...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu
>> (Jason O'Rourke) wrote:
>>
>> >Groofle Gambini <g...@jewbienation.com> wrote:
>> >>Nah.. I've been here awhile and will continue to stick around. You'll
>> >>just have to deal with someone who finally could finally calls a spade
>> >>a spade and rip into the occasional assclown with a god complex. So
>> >>with that... carry on, gimpnuts.
>> >
>> >Whoa- he's like the pale shadow of the second cousin of bullshark!
>>
>> and with that, you can get off my nutsack.
>>
> Wow..."gimpnuts"..."nutsack"...must be some kinda fixation.
>
yeah.. my balls, your chin. Nuff said, cum bubble.
Jack Sloan
Groofle Gambini
wrote:
>>
>Pretty nasty talk from a thirteen year old girl.
>
isn't it.. Jackie?
chilly
*You* didn't really come here for the scuba talk, didja? Despite what you
may have started out protesting in the first place.
Jack Slopehead
wrote:
I sure did. I was hoping the conversation would revert back to the
pics originally posted. That didn't happen over 10 responses. It
ended up being a bunch of roosters ruffling their feathers trying to
pretend they're more professional than the other.
chilly
"Jack Slopehead" <Jack_...@jewbienation.com> wrote in message
news:qrb45090to1oqq16g...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 20:53:29 GMT, "chilly" <sla...@shaw.canada>
you
> >may have started out protesting in the first place.
> >
> I sure did. I was hoping the conversation would revert back to the
> pics originally posted. That didn't happen over 10 responses. It
> ended up being a bunch of roosters ruffling their feathers trying to
> pretend they're more professional than the other.
Then why haven't you posted any scuba talk? Or discuss the pics?
Luca Cappelli
> You'll
> just have to deal with someone who finally could finally calls a spade
> a spade and rip into the occasional assclown with a god complex. So
> with that... carry on, gimpnuts.
There are posters here who can gut a person in three words.
I can't imagine the need for someone who will call "a spade a spade and rip
into the occasional assclown with a god complex." by calling them a name.