PADI Underwater Child Molester Specialty Course?

"Lee Willcox" <lee@willcoxwebs.com> entertained us with:
: The company I work for
:mandates top posting,

Really?

Dan Bracuk
As Big Ben said to the Leaning Tower of Pisa, I've got the time if you've got the inclination.
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! =-----

"Lee Willcox" <lee@willcoxwebs.com> entertained us with:
:Yes, we have our own newsgroup on our lan at work and that's
:the way they run it there. They want email and news to look the same
:and one of the gods that be made the decision to toppost on all.

What happens if you defy that edict?

Dan Bracuk
As Big Ben said to the Leaning Tower of Pisa, I've got the time if you've got the inclination.
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! =-----

"Grumman-581" <grumman581@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3Huab.47078$834.6106@twister.austin.rr.com...
> "Lee Willcox" wrote ...
> > The blond sectary down the hall sends you a email
> > reminding you of the rules.
> > She thinks that if you don't top post, you confuse the email.
> > I suspect that it confuses her and not the email
>
> Well, mixing top posting, inline posting, and bottom posting in the same
> message could be somewhat confusing... Personally, I prefer inline posting
> with judicious clipping of comments other than what I'm replying to
> directly... Of course, it also makes it much easier to take something out
of
> context... <evil-grin>
>
> > I see idiots, and they don't know their idiots.
>
> If you're going to say something like that, you really should spell it
> correctly... Use "they're", not "their"... When one is criticizing others,
> one must ensure that it can't be turned around upon them... <grin>
>
> BTW, I agree with the spirit of your comment though...
>
>
>

Yep that was a typo.
That's what happens when your over sixty
and type faster than you can think.

In spite of upper management,
have a good day anyway.

You don't get to dive with the team . . . .oops, wrong thread.

--
The latest survey shows that 3 out of 4
people make up 75% of the population.
- -


"Dan Bracuk" <bracuk@pathcom.com> wrote in message
news:jsnkmvgi4fnhr3dj2k9ephkbbo969889rk@4ax.com...
> "Lee Willcox" <lee@willcoxwebs.com> entertained us with:
> :Yes, we have our own newsgroup on our lan at work and that's
> :the way they run it there. They want email and news to look the same
> :and one of the gods that be made the decision to toppost on all.
>
> What happens if you defy that edict?
>
> Dan Bracuk
> As Big Ben said to the Leaning Tower of Pisa, I've got the time if you've
got the inclination.
> 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! =-----

"Lee Willcox" wrote ...
> The blond sectary down the hall sends you a email
> reminding you of the rules.
> She thinks that if you don't top post, you confuse the email.
> I suspect that it confuses her and not the email

Well, mixing top posting, inline posting, and bottom posting in the same
message could be somewhat confusing... Personally, I prefer inline posting
with judicious clipping of comments other than what I'm replying to
directly... Of course, it also makes it much easier to take something out of
context... <evil-grin>

> I see idiots, and they don't know their idiots.

If you're going to say something like that, you really should spell it
correctly... Use "they're", not "their"... When one is criticizing others,
one must ensure that it can't be turned around upon them... <grin>

BTW, I agree with the spirit of your comment though...

jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message news:<bkdhvv$rhg@library1.airnews.net>...

> I saw nothing in the article that implied it was his first attempt.
> It may have only been the first time he was ratted out.

But then again, you saw nothing in the article that implied it was a
'problem' with him before. Why would you draw a negative conclusion
against the man when you don't know a thing about his history ?? Are
you pre-judging him ?? I think you are.

Salty wrote:

> jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message news:<bkdhvv$rhg@library1.airnews.net>...
>
>
>>I saw nothing in the article that implied it was his first attempt.
>>It may have only been the first time he was ratted out.
>
>
> But then again, you saw nothing in the article that implied it was a
> 'problem' with him before. Why would you draw a negative conclusion
> against the man when you don't know a thing about his history ?? Are
> you pre-judging him ?? I think you are.


Well, if his 'problem' had surfaced before, I presume he wouldn't have
been working that job for several years without complaint. Am I
expected to believe this pillar of community respect woke up only that
morning as a poolside pedophile? Not likely. So, I really do know
something about his history. So I think I'm not.


--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur

"Grumman-581" <grumman581@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Bcuab.46997$834.40887@twister.austin.rr.com.. .
> "Dan Bracuk" wrote ...
> > What happens if you defy that edict?
>
> You get stuck applying MS security patches for the next year?

Speaking of which, another worm virus hit yesterday. In the last 8 hours,
I've received more than 100 copies of the newest Microsoft security patch
plus a shitload of return messages indicating that outgoing messages to
people I don't know, weren't delivered. I've confirmed I'm not infected,
but it's 100% certain that one or more of those who have me in their address
book are.

Lee

In article <bkeos2$qto@library2.airnews.net>, jer <gdunn@airmail.ten>
wrote:

€Salty wrote:
€
€> jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message
€> news:<bkdhvv$rhg@library1.airnews.net>...
€>
€>
€>>I saw nothing in the article that implied it was his first attempt.
€>>It may have only been the first time he was ratted out.
€>
€>
€> But then again, you saw nothing in the article that implied it was a
€> 'problem' with him before. Why would you draw a negative conclusion
€> against the man when you don't know a thing about his history ?? Are
€> you pre-judging him ?? I think you are.
€
€
€Well, if his 'problem' had surfaced before, I presume he wouldn't have
€been working that job for several years without complaint. Am I
€expected to believe this pillar of community respect woke up only that
€morning as a poolside pedophile? Not likely. So, I really do know
€something about his history. So I think I'm not.

To some degree, yes you are.

Keeping in mind that we only know what's been reported in one article,
I see two possible scenarios. One is what you're suggesting, that this
person is a peadophile, has been all his life, and has gotten caught.
Whether he got caught acting out on his desires for the first time or
has done this for a while, we have no idea. But if he's a peadophile,
it's almost certain that the urges have been there for many years.

The second scenario is that the boys are lying. Don't laugh, it
happens. It's less likely than the first scenario, but it's not unheard
of for a group of kids to plot to hurt someone by making false
accusations like this. Today, these plots usually fail because they
fall apart under detailed questioning (law enforcement has learned a
lot since the McMartin case), but by that time the initial story has
already done it's damage and the press isn't interested in the follow
up.

So, since you've only considered the first scenario, yes, you're
pre-judging him.

Alan

jer left this mess on Fri, 19 Sep 2003 06:23:06 -0500 for The Way to clean up:
>
>Salty wrote:
>
>>jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message
>>news:<bkdhvv$rhg@library1.airnews.net>...
>>
>>
>>>I saw nothing in the article that implied it was his first attempt.
>>>It may have only been the first time he was ratted out.
>>
>>
>> But then again, you saw nothing in the article that implied it was a
>> 'problem' with him before. Why would you draw a negative conclusion
>> against the man when you don't know a thing about his history ?? Are
>> you pre-judging him ?? I think you are.
>
>
>Well, if his 'problem' had surfaced before, I presume he wouldn't have
>been working that job for several years without complaint. Am I
>expected to believe this pillar of community respect woke up only that
>morning as a poolside pedophile? Not likely. So, I really do know
>something about his history. So I think I'm not.
>

Not true. Look at the complaints against various Catholic parishes, many by full
grown men.

We can't presume, either way. He may, he may not. In America, that automatically
means he's innocent, since he hasn't been proven guilty (either in the current
case or of past cases), that we know of.

Tao te Carl

"It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003