Cozumel Anchor Ahoy

Ron Lee wrote:
> Curtis is exactly right below. Bob is so full of himself that he
> can't see the obvious.

Neither you nor Curtis had anything to add.

The obvious is that you have NOTHING to post about scuba, cruising,
Cozumel, or anything related to them. All you could do was to get
yourself back to you IDIOT self, after having been SILENT (except
three posts before November) in rec.scuba, to do the same idiotic
act of yours.

-- Bob.
> >
> >> IDIOT Ron, I was merely responding to Grummy on his question. What's
> >> so self-aggrandizing about stating that own a map with depth chart (at
> >> home but not with me) and that I would ask the captain about it, when I
> >> have lunch with him with a small group?
> >>
> >> You cannot let an ordinary discussion of Cozumel, diving, or cruising
> >> with you making your anal-fixated NOISE!
> >>
> >> Grow up, little Poster Boy!

Reef Fish wrote:
> Jer wrote:
>
>>Reef Fish wrote:
>>
>>
>>>For those divers who are concerned with the anchoring cruise ships
>>>damaging the reefs of Cozumel dive sites, I can say positively and
>>>unequivocally (based on my well over 1,200 dives in Cozumel) that there
>>>is NO WAY in Hell (ooops, that's in the next stop at Grand Cayman) that
>>>the anchoring at that distance from shore in the channel that it could
>>>damage any coral (if there's any at that distance and depth) that is
>>>ever
>>>seen by any diver in Cozumel, nor could it possibly make any difference
>>>to the reefs south of the Puerta Maya pier.
>>
>>What about the reefs north of the damaged pier? We can't not consider
>>those - they're the mating areas of eagle rays. I realize not a lot of
>>divers go there, but that's beside my point. Everything matters, not
>>just the parts most divers see. Out of sight != out of mind.
>
>
> First of all, you have to know a bit more about the geography and
> current of the island.
>
> The mating areas of eagle rays are in the upper NORTH (near the
> East side) of the island. Even if there is constant excavation of sand
>
> and silt at the spot the cruiseship was anchored, the direction of the
> current will likely NEVER get there!
>
> It takes MILES before it reaches the San Juan Reef north of the
> Square. Then the 3-4 knot current of San Juan goes WEST when
> it meets the current of the Barracuda Reef.

I know some things about the geography and currents of the island too,
but I'm not going to get into a pissing contest about it. Yes, I know
where eagle rays mate, we've been filming them off and on for 20 odd
years between the marsh and San Juan.

>
> Besides, what make you think that the eagle rays would be affected
> by a few drops of sand. They stir up more sand looking for food than
> the cruise ships!

True, but they're just doing what comes natural to them - you're not.
Therefore, what they do is inconsequential to us and expected - the
reverse of that is inexcusable.

>
> Eagle mating season in Cozumel (Dec - Mar) was a relatively new
> phenomenon discovered by some locals where dive shops DON'T
> go. I was diving with those eagle rays in 1998 before any dive shop
> even knew about the eagle ray mating in the North. I posted this
> in March 2000, when someone reported that Blue Angel was taking
> divers to the spot between downtown and San Juan reef where
> eagle rays visit regularly from the North:

I don't need no stinking dive shop to take me anywhere I want to go - I
use my own boat any time I want. And some locals have known about the
eagle rays for a lot longer you - some tried to keep a lid on it until
Cousteau opened his mouth long before you did.

>
> <<From your description, I think you were at the site where I dived, a
> ledge
> at 75 to 90 fsw of very swift current. I am curious as to what profile
> you
> did with Blue Angle (depth/time). When I did it privately, we were
> always
> small groups of air-misers and we dived with EAN36 and were able to
> stay
> at 80 fsw for nearly an hour, hanging near the ledge while watching the
>
> squadrons of rays pass by over and over again. That was a couple of
> years
> ago, before any dive shop took divers out there.>>
>
> That put my first encounter with those squadrons of eagle rays back
> to 1998, before the new cruise ship piers were built. The arrival of
> the cruise ships, as much as 10 on some days, did not affect the
> annual mating of those eagle rays one whit.

That's an opinion which some locals don't share. When we were filming
up there, we routinely ran the magazines dry. Now? what's the point?
There's not enough to bother with. Don't presume to tell me the eagle
ray population is the same today as it was in '98, or long before that.
That's an opinion that is shared by some locals, and me.

>
> The marine animals are much smarter and can adapt to changing
> environments (as "survival of the fittest") much better than homo
> sapiens, or the myopic give them credit for.

You can try shopping that crap around with your pod friends, but for all
the areas of the world that have been adversely affected by coastal
development and the pollution from it, you're an idiot, and we know it.
Now you do too.


>
>
>>>So, that's good news.
>>
>>Cruise ships are always bad news.
>
>
> Only to the myotic and prejudiced.
>
> -- Bob.
>

Imagine that... a pod person calling me myotic and prejudiced. How
quaint. :)


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

"Reef Fish" wrote

>> Curtis is exactly right below. Bob is so full of himself that he
>> can't see the obvious.
>
> Neither you nor Curtis had anything to add.

Figured I didn't have to add anything to the already inflated story, so
my small addition was to point out that it was far too much information to
simply answer a question that had little to do with diving, unless you're
planning on a very deep bounce dive. Seems to me it's only purpose was to
brag.

Curtis

Pond Scumbag Bottom Dwelling Bob was quoted as saying

"So, we are not in any hurry to get into the long line of passengers to
scramble ashore, and plan to go as soon as the crowd clears, two to
three hours from how, and still have all afternoon to re-visit the
town, for the third time this year.

-- Bob."

Pond Scumbag Bottom Dwelling Bob was also quoted as saying,

"I would guess that it's in excess of 400 ft, from my vague recollection

of the depth chart on my Cozumel map. I'll ask the ship captain when
I'll have lunch with him (invited among the "most frequent Princess
cruisers" on board.)

-- Bob."

Gosh, I guess that was just some more Pond Scum lies.




Waiting






Waiting



Pig vomit Pond Scum has nothing to say.





Must stop laughing.




Really must stop laughing


"Ron Lee" <nospamronlee@pcisys.net> wrote in message
news:437a946e.10174250@news.pcisys.net...
> "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>>of the depth chart on my Cozumel map. I'll ask the ship captain when
>>I'll have lunch with him (invited among the "most frequent Princess
>>cruisers" on board.)
>>
>>-- Bob.
>>
> And he continues his self-aggrandizing comments. Hey look at me. I
> am wonderful. Cruise ship captains request my audience. I am Bob
> Ling...most exalted of all in my presence.
>
> Ron Lee
>

Jer wrote:
> Reef Fish wrote:
> > Jer wrote:
> >
> >>Reef Fish wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>For those divers who are concerned with the anchoring cruise ships
> >>>damaging the reefs of Cozumel dive sites, I can say positively and
> >>>unequivocally (based on my well over 1,200 dives in Cozumel) that there
> >>>is NO WAY in Hell (ooops, that's in the next stop at Grand Cayman) that
> >>>the anchoring at that distance from shore in the channel that it could
> >>>damage any coral (if there's any at that distance and depth) that is
> >>>ever
> >>>seen by any diver in Cozumel, nor could it possibly make any difference
> >>>to the reefs south of the Puerta Maya pier.
> >>
> >>What about the reefs north of the damaged pier? We can't not consider
> >>those - they're the mating areas of eagle rays. I realize not a lot of
> >>divers go there, but that's beside my point. Everything matters, not
> >>just the parts most divers see. Out of sight != out of mind.
> >
> >
> > First of all, you have to know a bit more about the geography and
> > current of the island.
> >
> > The mating areas of eagle rays are in the upper NORTH (near the
> > East side) of the island. Even if there is constant excavation of sand
> >
> > and silt at the spot the cruiseship was anchored, the direction of the
> > current will likely NEVER get there!
> >
> > It takes MILES before it reaches the San Juan Reef north of the
> > Square. Then the 3-4 knot current of San Juan goes WEST when
> > it meets the current of the Barracuda Reef.
>
> I know some things about the geography and currents of the island too,
> but I'm not going to get into a pissing contest about it.

So far, you're the only one pissing in this subthread. I gave you some
straight and factual answers telling you that there is no way that the
Star Princess cruise ship anchored half a mile off Puenta Maya could
in any way affect the eagle ray mating site/season 15 miles NORTH
of the anchoring spot and OFF the path of the current.

Those are FACTS -- anyone familiar with the geography of the island
of Cozumel could have told you the same thing.

However, I welcome any disagreement from anyone, and I am glad
to respond to your post, point by point, since this a a RARE case in
the past two weeks (where the signal to noise ratio is at most 1 to 20,
no thanks to the idiots of rec.scuba.* and the one-and-only-idiot of
rec.travel.cruises in this thread) that you have at least some opinion
and facts about crusing/scuba relative to the eagle ray mating site
and season in Cozumel.

So, on with my rebuttal and question of the credibility of some of your
points.

> Yes, I know
> where eagle rays mate, we've been filming them off and on for 20 odd
> years between the marsh and San Juan.

If you have been filming them for 20 odds years, then they are NOT
the recent phenomenon, of a much larger scale, discovered at a site
DIFFERENT from your site. This is not to question your statement
above, but to suggest that before 1998, you've been filming different
eagle rays at different locations.


> > Besides, what make you think that the eagle rays would be affected
> > by a few drops of sand. They stir up more sand looking for food than
> > the cruise ships!
>
> True, but they're just doing what comes natural to them - you're not.
> Therefore, what they do is inconsequential to us and expected - the
> reverse of that is inexcusable.

First of all, you are making the ERRONEOUS assumption that that the
few grains of cruise ship stirred up sand could even REACH the eagle
ray mating location.

Next, you're talking about Man interfering with the natural environment
of marine animals as being "idiots", your pissing, hypocrisy, and
shallowness of knowledge about marine animal showed. This is
the passage in our later exchange:

> > The marine animals are much smarter and can adapt to changing
> > environments (as "survival of the fittest") much better than homo
> > sapiens, or the myopic give them credit for.
>
> You can try shopping that crap around with your pod friends, but for all
> the areas of the world that have been adversely affected by coastal
> development and the pollution from it, you're an idiot, and we know it.
> Now you do too.

Have you ever been to Coco's Island? It's not a costal development,
but it's a marine park besieged with illegal shark poachers for sharks
fin. Hundreds and thousands of sharks were illegally killed by
Japanese
fisherman for fins, throwing the rest of the body back into the ocean.
This caused international outrage by the marine scientists, ecologists,
and scuba divers who take tortuous 36 boat rides (on 110 ft or smaller
liveaboard dive boats, the only way to get there) to dive with the
hammerhead and white tip sharks there.

The shark population was not affected in the slightest by the shark
poachers in the past 15 years since I first dived there in 1992.
That's
part of the big picture of the "survival of the fittest".

According to your natural environment theory, nobody should be even
DIVING with those sharks in their natural environment, or in all those
natural environments in French Polynesia where I've dived with
armies of sharks that make the squadrons of eagle rays pale in number
by comparison. Were those sharks adversely affected by admiring
scuba divers diving in their natural environment?

Only the myopic and prejudiced would think so.

But the biggest hypocrisy of all is that you think it's perfectly fine
for
YOURSELF to dive and film those eagle rays for decades, while it's
NOT okay for divers like myself to be diving in their natural
environment and SHARE my experience with them?

Just THINK about your own faulty logic and hypocrisy.

> >
> > Eagle mating season in Cozumel (Dec - Mar) was a relatively new
> > phenomenon discovered by some locals where dive shops DON'T
> > go. I was diving with those eagle rays in 1998 before any dive shop
> > even knew about the eagle ray mating in the North. I posted this
> > in March 2000, when someone reported that Blue Angel was taking
> > divers to the spot between downtown and San Juan reef where
> > eagle rays visit regularly from the North:
>
> I don't need no stinking dive shop to take me anywhere I want to go - I
> use my own boat any time I want.

Did I say I dived with the eagle rays with any dive shop (stinking or
not)?
You are NOT the only local who has boats you know?

For you to be a local, you certainly have posted very little facts
about
diving in Cozumel during the past 15 years or rec.scuba, have you?
I wonder why?


> And some locals have known about the
> eagle rays for a lot longer you - some tried to keep a lid on it until
> Cousteau opened his mouth long before you did.

Your credibility is sinking to a nadir right THERE! The Cousteaus
are not exactly ones shy of publicity of their own discovery. Jacque
discovered the sleeping sharks in Isla Mujeres, and within days, the
entire world (those tuned to marine biology and scuba) knew about
it. Why on earth should Cousteau NOT open his mouth and share
his experience -- except *I* have not heard anything about Cousteau's
discovery of those mating eagle rays in Cozumel.

Why should ANYONE try to keep a lid on the discovery?

That's you supreme selfishness and hypocrisy!

Finally, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the small island of Cozumel, where I
know the most-informed locals about diving, as well as the DMs who
often dived or fished near the eagle ray mating areas on the North
East side of the island NOT to have known about it for 15 years
after you claim you knew. Paul Padilla, Charos, and a few other
Cozumel DMs who know the divable locations throughout the
island like the palms of their hands would have known about it.

Are you affiliated with ANY dive shop? What did you do with the
filming of the eagle rays you did for 20 year?

In what you posted above, I simply question your credibility SERIOUSLY,
on factual as well as circumstantial evidence (that you have offered
NO knowledge about the eagle ray mating season/location BEFORE
or AFTER I made them public by posting in rec.scuba; and that you
have offered NO knowledge about various other dive sites in Cozumel
where the shop I dived with found the sleeping nurse sharks at the
palancar site now known as Palancar Bricks; or all those sites where
I wrote about the abundance of LARGE (six-inch or more) sea horses
of black, brown, striped, orange, and yellow.

I supposed you've filmed all of those 30 years ago, and was trying to
keep the lid from anyone else knowing about it, right?

IMNSHO about diving in Cozumel, you have an abundance of lack of
credibility, and plenty of prejudices.


> > <<From your description, I think you were at the site where I dived, a
> > ledge
> > at 75 to 90 fsw of very swift current. I am curious as to what profile
> > you
> > did with Blue Angle (depth/time). When I did it privately, we were
> > always
> > small groups of air-misers and we dived with EAN36 and were able to
> > stay
> > at 80 fsw for nearly an hour, hanging near the ledge while watching the
> >
> > squadrons of rays pass by over and over again. That was a couple of
> > years
> > ago, before any dive shop took divers out there.>>
> >
> > That put my first encounter with those squadrons of eagle rays back
> > to 1998, before the new cruise ship piers were built. The arrival of
> > the cruise ships, as much as 10 on some days, did not affect the
> > annual mating of those eagle rays one whit.
>
> That's an opinion which some locals don't share. When we were filming
> up there, we routinely ran the magazines dry. Now? what's the point?
> There's not enough to bother with. Don't presume to tell me the eagle
> ray population is the same today as it was in '98, or long before that.
> That's an opinion that is shared by some locals, and me.

We weren't even talking about the same LOCATION of eagle ray mating
in the latest (circa 1998) discovery. Marine animals are known to
migrate to other locations at will. That's how they came to Cozumel
(from nowhere so to speak), and they could decide to go elsewhere
for plenty of reasons other than what YOU (an obvious non scientist
and non marine-biologist and non echthyologist) speculated.

If you want to be constructive about your KNOWLEDGE of marine
life in Cozumel, why don't you tell us some of YOUR discoveries or
experiences -- which had been more or less vacuous until the not
credible claim of your in this thread.

> >
> > The marine animals are much smarter and can adapt to changing
> > environments (as "survival of the fittest") much better than homo
> > sapiens, or the myopic give them credit for.
>
> You can try shopping that crap around with your pod friends, but for all
> the areas of the world that have been adversely affected by coastal
> development and the pollution from it, you're an idiot, and we know it.
> Now you do too.

Now you're just pissing rather than dispensing any KNOWLEDGE, or
even trying to substantiate your OPINION.
>
> >
> >>>So, that's good news.
> >>
> >>Cruise ships are always bad news.
> >
> >
> > Only to the myotic and prejudiced.
> >
> > -- Bob.
> >
> Imagine that... a pod person calling me myotic and prejudiced. How
> quaint. :)

You can call me a "pod person" after you've dived in Easter Island, AND
after you have been the ONLY passenger on the entire cruise ship who
chose scuba diving in Easter Island over gawking at the world-famous
giant statues, the moai.

Half you dived anywhere in the world other than in your own boat
filming
eagle rays the past 20 years?

Myopic and prejudiced -- I think I sized you up pretty accurately, and
this post DOCUMENTED the reason why.

-- Bob.

"Reef Fish" wrote in message
news:1132163076.874169.12660@z14g2000cwz.googlegro ups.com...

<crossposting-snipped>

> I gave you some straight and factual answers telling
> you that there is no way that the Star Princess cruise
> ship anchored half a mile off Puenta Maya

Actually, I'm surprised that they anchored instead of just maintaining
station with their bow thrusters... On one of the ports of call on the
Alaskan cruise that we went on, the ship did not dock, but rather maintained
station while the launches shuttled the people back and forth to shore...
Maybe there is less current up there, so it was easier for them to do it
that way...

> Why on earth should Cousteau NOT open his mouth and share
> his experience

Because he felt embarrassed that he had spent all that time as a Peeping Tom
watching rays fuck?

Reef Fish wrote:

> IDIOT Ron, I was merely responding to Grummy on his question. What's
> so self-aggrandizing about stating that own a map with depth chart (at
> home but not with me) and that I would ask the captain about it, when I
> have lunch with him with a small group?
>
> You cannot let an ordinary discussion of Cozumel, diving, or cruising
> with you making your anal-fixated NOISE!
>
> Grow up, little Poster Boy!

in person, does poor bob ling show signs like these of ESL?

>
> -- Bob.
>

Grumman-581 wrote:
> "Reef Fish" wrote in message
> news:1132163076.874169.12660@z14g2000cwz.googlegro ups.com...
>
> <crossposting-snipped>
>
> > I gave you some straight and factual answers telling
> > you that there is no way that the Star Princess cruise
> > ship anchored half a mile off Puenta Maya
>
> Actually, I'm surprised that they anchored instead of just maintaining
> station with their bow thrusters... On one of the ports of call on the
> Alaskan cruise that we went on, the ship did not dock, but rather maintained
> station while the launches shuttled the people back and forth to shore...
> Maybe there is less current up there, so it was easier for them to do it
> that way...

Cruise ships sometimes do that even after docked at pier or anchored,
when there is current, to lessen the stress on the lines, I supposed.

But the point is moot. Whatever little sand that might have been
stirred up is not going to reach a point 15 miles away, in the wrong
direction of the current.

>
> > Why on earth should Cousteau NOT open his mouth and share
> > his experience
>
> Because he felt embarrassed that he had spent all that time as a Peeping Tom
> watching rays fuck?

No, it would have been Peeping Jacque or Peeping Michel. Leave
Tom out of this! ;)

-- Bob.

"Reef Fish" wrote in message
news:1132172869.263199.259600@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
> Cruise ships sometimes do that even after docked at pier or anchored,
> when there is current, to lessen the stress on the lines, I supposed.
>
> But the point is moot. Whatever little sand that might have been
> stirred up is not going to reach a point 15 miles away, in the wrong
> direction of the current.

I wasn't commenting on whether it stirred up any sand... I was just curious
from a technical point of view...

Reef Fish wrote:
> Jer wrote:
>
>>Reef Fish wrote:
>>
>>>Jer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Reef Fish wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>For those divers who are concerned with the anchoring cruise ships
>>>>>damaging the reefs of Cozumel dive sites, I can say positively and
>>>>>unequivocally (based on my well over 1,200 dives in Cozumel) that there
>>>>>is NO WAY in Hell (ooops, that's in the next stop at Grand Cayman) that
>>>>>the anchoring at that distance from shore in the channel that it could
>>>>>damage any coral (if there's any at that distance and depth) that is
>>>>>ever
>>>>>seen by any diver in Cozumel, nor could it possibly make any difference
>>>>>to the reefs south of the Puerta Maya pier.
>>>>
>>>>What about the reefs north of the damaged pier? We can't not consider
>>>>those - they're the mating areas of eagle rays. I realize not a lot of
>>>>divers go there, but that's beside my point. Everything matters, not
>>>>just the parts most divers see. Out of sight != out of mind.
>>>
>>>
>>>First of all, you have to know a bit more about the geography and
>>>current of the island.
>>>
>>>The mating areas of eagle rays are in the upper NORTH (near the
>>>East side) of the island. Even if there is constant excavation of sand
>>>
>>>and silt at the spot the cruiseship was anchored, the direction of the
>>>current will likely NEVER get there!
>>>
>>>It takes MILES before it reaches the San Juan Reef north of the
>>>Square. Then the 3-4 knot current of San Juan goes WEST when
>>>it meets the current of the Barracuda Reef.
>>
>>I know some things about the geography and currents of the island too,
>>but I'm not going to get into a pissing contest about it.
>
>
> So far, you're the only one pissing in this subthread. I gave you some
> straight and factual answers telling you that there is no way that the
> Star Princess cruise ship anchored half a mile off Puenta Maya could
> in any way affect the eagle ray mating site/season 15 miles NORTH
> of the anchoring spot and OFF the path of the current.

I've already told you I'm not just interested in what I, or anyone else
sees when diving. My concern is also for all the other things we don't
see when diving. You either need to try harder to keep up or put your
dinner forks down and take notes.

>
> Those are FACTS -- anyone familiar with the geography of the island
> of Cozumel could have told you the same thing.
>
> However, I welcome any disagreement from anyone, and I am glad
> to respond to your post, point by point, since this a a RARE case in
> the past two weeks (where the signal to noise ratio is at most 1 to 20,
> no thanks to the idiots of rec.scuba.* and the one-and-only-idiot of
> rec.travel.cruises in this thread) that you have at least some opinion
> and facts about crusing/scuba relative to the eagle ray mating site
> and season in Cozumel.
>
> So, on with my rebuttal and question of the credibility of some of your
> points.
>
>
>>Yes, I know
>>where eagle rays mate, we've been filming them off and on for 20 odd
>>years between the marsh and San Juan.
>
>
> If you have been filming them for 20 odds years, then they are NOT
> the recent phenomenon, of a much larger scale, discovered at a site
> DIFFERENT from your site. This is not to question your statement
> above, but to suggest that before 1998, you've been filming different
> eagle rays at different locations.

Maybe, maybe not, I don't really care.

>
>
>
>>>Besides, what make you think that the eagle rays would be affected
>>>by a few drops of sand. They stir up more sand looking for food than
>>>the cruise ships!
>>
>>True, but they're just doing what comes natural to them - you're not.
>>Therefore, what they do is inconsequential to us and expected - the
>>reverse of that is inexcusable.
>
>
> First of all, you are making the ERRONEOUS assumption that that the
> few grains of cruise ship stirred up sand could even REACH the eagle
> ray mating location.

It's not about the damn sand Ding-a-ling - my point, which wooshed right
over your pointy little head, is about your crummy anchors. They have
no business in a wildlife protected area, aka national park. Next time
you and your scrummy captain do each other, tell him to get his fucking
anchors out of the fucking park, or Sundays won't be the only days he
and his ilk aren't invited.

>
> Next, you're talking about Man interfering with the natural environment
> of marine animals as being "idiots", your pissing, hypocrisy, and
> shallowness of knowledge about marine animal showed. This is
> the passage in our later exchange:
>
>
>>>The marine animals are much smarter and can adapt to changing
>>>environments (as "survival of the fittest") much better than homo
>>>sapiens, or the myopic give them credit for.
>>
>>You can try shopping that crap around with your pod friends, but for all
>>the areas of the world that have been adversely affected by coastal
>>development and the pollution from it, you're an idiot, and we know it.
>> Now you do too.
>
>
> Have you ever been to Coco's Island? It's not a costal development,
> but it's a marine park besieged with illegal shark poachers for sharks
> fin. Hundreds and thousands of sharks were illegally killed by
> Japanese
> fisherman for fins, throwing the rest of the body back into the ocean.
> This caused international outrage by the marine scientists, ecologists,
> and scuba divers who take tortuous 36 boat rides (on 110 ft or smaller
> liveaboard dive boats, the only way to get there) to dive with the
> hammerhead and white tip sharks there.

Is there a point here? or are you trying to remind me there's still a
few poachers out there that deserve to be finned?

>
> The shark population was not affected in the slightest by the shark
> poachers in the past 15 years since I first dived there in 1992.
> That's
> part of the big picture of the "survival of the fittest".

So, your saying that abusing the little animals is okay until they show
up on the endangered species list? Or does your Abuse Acceptibility
Quotient go beyond that? I'm just curious how far your pod ass is
willing to go.

>
> According to your natural environment theory, nobody should be even
> DIVING with those sharks in their natural environment, or in all those
> natural environments in French Polynesia where I've dived with
> armies of sharks that make the squadrons of eagle rays pale in number
> by comparison. Were those sharks adversely affected by admiring
> scuba divers diving in their natural environment?

Not so far as I know. I certainly didn't notice any fins missing, and I
didn't notice any floaters either. So I suppose everybody behaved
themselves.

>
> Only the myopic and prejudiced would think so.
>
> But the biggest hypocrisy of all is that you think it's perfectly fine
> for
> YOURSELF to dive and film those eagle rays for decades, while it's
> NOT okay for divers like myself to be diving in their natural
> environment and SHARE my experience with them?

You're welcome to dive and share whatever you want so long as you're not
fucking with anything that don't belong to you.

>
> Just THINK about your own faulty logic and hypocrisy.
>
>
>>>Eagle mating season in Cozumel (Dec - Mar) was a relatively new
>>>phenomenon discovered by some locals where dive shops DON'T
>>>go. I was diving with those eagle rays in 1998 before any dive shop
>>>even knew about the eagle ray mating in the North. I posted this
>>>in March 2000, when someone reported that Blue Angel was taking
>>>divers to the spot between downtown and San Juan reef where
>>>eagle rays visit regularly from the North:
>>
>>I don't need no stinking dive shop to take me anywhere I want to go - I
>>use my own boat any time I want.
>
>
> Did I say I dived with the eagle rays with any dive shop (stinking or
> not)?
> You are NOT the only local who has boats you know?

I'm not a local, my boat is.

>
> For you to be a local, you certainly have posted very little facts
> about
> diving in Cozumel during the past 15 years or rec.scuba, have you?
> I wonder why?

Because I've already told you I don't share the good shit - I keep my
yap shut because I don't want the pod people fucking it up.

>
>
>
>>And some locals have known about the
>>eagle rays for a lot longer you - some tried to keep a lid on it until
>>Cousteau opened his mouth long before you did.
>
>
> Your credibility is sinking to a nadir right THERE! The Cousteaus
> are not exactly ones shy of publicity of their own discovery. Jacque
> discovered the sleeping sharks in Isla Mujeres, and within days, the
> entire world (those tuned to marine biology and scuba) knew about
> it. Why on earth should Cousteau NOT open his mouth and share
> his experience -- except *I* have not heard anything about Cousteau's
> discovery of those mating eagle rays in Cozumel.

Cousteau was paid to share, I'm not.

>
> Why should ANYONE try to keep a lid on the discovery?
>
> That's you supreme selfishness and hypocrisy!

Selfishness? Yup. hypocrisy? Not even.

>
> Finally, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the small island of Cozumel, where I
> know the most-informed locals about diving, as well as the DMs who
> often dived or fished near the eagle ray mating areas on the North
> East side of the island NOT to have known about it for 15 years
> after you claim you knew. Paul Padilla, Charos, and a few other
> Cozumel DMs who know the divable locations throughout the
> island like the palms of their hands would have known about it.

I've met most DMs there at one time or another, sometimes just across
the gunnels for a brief chat. Since I don't need one, I really don't
see much else from them.

>
> Are you affiliated with ANY dive shop? What did you do with the
> filming of the eagle rays you did for 20 year?

No, no shop affiliation here, don't need that either. The shutterbugs
are students from the B I G school in Mexico City, they don't have their
own boat and not much money to hire one, so I loan them mine. Sometimes
they let me tag along as a volunteer handler. They get to go places rec
divers aren't allowed to go. Ever been in the navy training area?
Didn't think so.

>
> In what you posted above, I simply question your credibility SERIOUSLY,
> on factual as well as circumstantial evidence (that you have offered
> NO knowledge about the eagle ray mating season/location BEFORE
> or AFTER I made them public by posting in rec.scuba; and that you
> have offered NO knowledge about various other dive sites in Cozumel
> where the shop I dived with found the sleeping nurse sharks at the
> palancar site now known as Palancar Bricks; or all those sites where
> I wrote about the abundance of LARGE (six-inch or more) sea horses
> of black, brown, striped, orange, and yellow.
>
> I supposed you've filmed all of those 30 years ago, and was trying to
> keep the lid from anyone else knowing about it, right?

Like you, I've seen many wonderful things while diving. Unlike you, I
don't make a point of coming in here to brag to the world about it.

>
> IMNSHO about diving in Cozumel, you have an abundance of lack of
> credibility, and plenty of prejudices.

I guess we are alike in this regard.

>
>
>
>>><<From your description, I think you were at the site where I dived, a
>>>ledge
>>>at 75 to 90 fsw of very swift current. I am curious as to what profile
>>>you
>>>did with Blue Angle (depth/time). When I did it privately, we were
>>>always
>>>small groups of air-misers and we dived with EAN36 and were able to
>>>stay
>>>at 80 fsw for nearly an hour, hanging near the ledge while watching the
>>>
>>>squadrons of rays pass by over and over again. That was a couple of
>>>years
>>>ago, before any dive shop took divers out there.>>
>>>
>>>That put my first encounter with those squadrons of eagle rays back
>>>to 1998, before the new cruise ship piers were built. The arrival of
>>>the cruise ships, as much as 10 on some days, did not affect the
>>>annual mating of those eagle rays one whit.
>>
>>That's an opinion which some locals don't share. When we were filming
>>up there, we routinely ran the magazines dry. Now? what's the point?
>>There's not enough to bother with. Don't presume to tell me the eagle
>>ray population is the same today as it was in '98, or long before that.
>> That's an opinion that is shared by some locals, and me.
>
>
> We weren't even talking about the same LOCATION of eagle ray mating
> in the latest (circa 1998) discovery. Marine animals are known to
> migrate to other locations at will. That's how they came to Cozumel
> (from nowhere so to speak), and they could decide to go elsewhere
> for plenty of reasons other than what YOU (an obvious non scientist
> and non marine-biologist and non echthyologist) speculated.
>
> If you want to be constructive about your KNOWLEDGE of marine
> life in Cozumel, why don't you tell us some of YOUR discoveries or
> experiences -- which had been more or less vacuous until the not
> credible claim of your in this thread.

It's only an opinion, Ding-a-Ling, get over it. You're welcome to
construct whatever you want from it.

>
>
>>>The marine animals are much smarter and can adapt to changing
>>>environments (as "survival of the fittest") much better than homo
>>>sapiens, or the myopic give them credit for.
>>
>>You can try shopping that crap around with your pod friends, but for all
>>the areas of the world that have been adversely affected by coastal
>>development and the pollution from it, you're an idiot, and we know it.
>> Now you do too.
>
>
> Now you're just pissing rather than dispensing any KNOWLEDGE, or
> even trying to substantiate your OPINION.

Oh, okay, the lack of a thriving reef structure in S. Florida is just a
bad dream. You've been so helpful.


>
>>>>>So, that's good news.
>>>>
>>>>Cruise ships are always bad news.
>>>
>>>
>>>Only to the myotic and prejudiced.
>>>
>>>-- Bob.
>>>
>>
>>Imagine that... a pod person calling me myotic and prejudiced. How
>>quaint. :)
>
>
> You can call me a "pod person" after you've dived in Easter Island, AND
> after you have been the ONLY passenger on the entire cruise ship who
> chose scuba diving in Easter Island over gawking at the world-famous
> giant statues, the moai.
>
> Half you dived anywhere in the world other than in your own boat
> filming
> eagle rays the past 20 years?

Why, yes, I've been to many places, probably a lot of places where
you've dived. Are you expecting me to try matching you site for site
now? Not gonna happen.

>
> Myopic and prejudiced -- I think I sized you up pretty accurately, and
> this post DOCUMENTED the reason why.

Whatever... think what you want. <rolling eyes>


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'