Ron Lee's Childish LU Excuse Debunked

This is Ron Lee's excuse for making his noise and childish whining
in the thread "A Very Memorable Dive in Cozumel" and subsequent
follow-up thread, "Ron Lee Profiled":

RonL>> A correction is in order. It was the original post about LU
RonL>> ...not this thread.


This was my response to Ron Lee's origninal post about LU, to which
Ron NEVER responded, in substance:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain



This was Ron Lee's response to my DETAILED and REASONED comments
in that post, about his comments on LU:

RonL> I should have counted on my buddy Bob to resort to his
RonL> typical trash talk. Although one thing seems to have changed.
RonL> Unless I missed it, he did not call me an idiot 30 times
RonL> in one post.
RonL>
RonL> Bob, you might finally be growing up.

Note Ron's childish vocabulary! When I make serious substantive
comments to his post, he calls it "typical trash talk". He had NO
reply to the SUBSTANCE I questioned.

This was Ron's response when I DID NOT call him an idiot in that
post and merely questioned HIS reasons. I have nothing against
LU. I have good friends diving with and saying good things about
LU, just as I had friends diving with and saying good things about
Aldora. I have NOTHING NEGATIVE to post about those.

It's all about those childish AND idiotic things Ron Lee posts
about LU, and other scuba subjects!


It's the SUBSTANCE of what Ron Lee posted that I challenged, in
his LU post as I challenged his comments in all his Aldora posts.


When I DON'T call Ron an IDIOT, he says

RonL> Bob, you might finally be growing up.

When I obliged and called him an IDIOT in my response to his
response, Ron Lee childishly resorted to his patented pollution
tactic or posting derogatory "subject" titles about Bob Ling
and doing his incessaant WHINING about me calling him an IDIOT,
being childish, blah, blah, blah, as he is doing now.


Ron Lee's whining excuse for making noise in the wrong threads:

RonL>> It was the original post about LU...not this thread.


Ron, STOP your incessant childish and gratuitous WHINING. Just
go back to MY original reply to your LU post, and reply to my
SUBSTANTIVE comments to your post, in THAT thread!

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain


The only relevant post in the thread from which this one arose
(to debunk Ron's childish excuse) is Ron Lee's profile:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain


-- Bob.

Bob, it is a fact that you usually resort to name-calling. I noted in
one post a few weeks ago that was in response to a post I made perhaps
a year ago. In it you call me and someone else idiots even though we
had done NOTHING to incite your childish behavior.

That is a sign that your childish behavior is just the way you are.
What a shame from soomeone who professes to have a doctorate and
taught college classes.

BTW Bob Ling, your actions while you still taught brought discredit to
your college. Making yourself look bad is one thing...but to do that
to your employer is unacceptable.

Ron Lee

PS. I decided to make a new thread. Hope you like it Bob

In article <404bcf5c.85937733@news.pcisys.net>, Ron Lee
<ronleenospam@pcisys.net> wrote:

€ What a shame from soomeone who professes to have a doctorate and
€ taught college classes.

He's never taught anywhere.

--
"We're going to rush the hijackers."
-Jeremy Glick, aboard United Airlines flight 93, September 11, 2001

Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com (Reef Fish) wrote:
>
> This was my response to Ron Lee's origninal post about LU, to which
> Ron NEVER responded, in substance:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...40posting .go
> ogle.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain


Which uses the oddball "text only" format for some reason, which means
that the reader cannot easily find any prior or subsequent posts in the
discussion thread, including all of the responses.


Here's a URL to the same post, with the full thread contexting restored:

http://tinyurl.com/2uvvk



-hh

ronleenospam@pcisys.net (Ron Lee) wrote in message news:<404bcf5c.85937733@news.pcisys.net>...
> Bob, it is a fact that you usually resort to name-calling.

Calling an idiot an idiot? So?


> What a shame from soomeone who professes to have a doctorate and
> taught college classes.

If you want to pick on something, why don't you pick on the SUBSTANCE
of ANYTHING I have posted, in scuba, and relating to scuba, rather
than your idiotic, unethetical, and utterly senseless ad hominem
attack of me in my profession, unknown to you, and not reflected nor
represented in rec.scuba?


> Ron Lee
>
> PS. I decided to make a new thread. Hope you like it Bob

So what's new, Ron? Nothing YOU do or will ever do CAN discredit ME
in this forum or anywhere folks can READ and use their head. You have
already been profiled for what you are, a worthless, pitiful, anal
retentive twerp and gnat!

How's THAT? Hope you like some new descriptive terms about you other
than "idiotic".

-- Bob.

In article <8fb7380b.0403080557.57b36103@posting.google.com >, Reef Fish
<Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote:


#So what's new, Ron? Nothing YOU do or will ever do CAN discredit ME
#in this forum or anywhere folks can READ and use their head.

Indeed. Your own words do a far better job.

Get a fucking room.



"Ron Lee" <ronleenospam@pcisys.net> wrote in message
news:404bcf5c.85937733@news.pcisys.net...
> Bob, it is a fact that you usually resort to name-calling. I noted in
> one post a few weeks ago that was in response to a post I made perhaps
> a year ago. In it you call me and someone else idiots even though we
> had done NOTHING to incite your childish behavior.
>
> That is a sign that your childish behavior is just the way you are.
> What a shame from soomeone who professes to have a doctorate and
> taught college classes.
>
> BTW Bob Ling, your actions while you still taught brought discredit to
> your college. Making yourself look bad is one thing...but to do that
> to your employer is unacceptable.
>
> Ron Lee
>
> PS. I decided to make a new thread. Hope you like it Bob

"Scott" wrote ...
> Get a fucking room.

Yeah, they do sound like an old married couple, don't they?

H. Huntzinger <{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com (Reef Fish) wrote:
>> This was my response to Ron Lee's origninal post about LU, to which
>> Ron NEVER responded, in substance:
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...40posting .go
>> ogle.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
>
>
>Which uses the oddball "text only" format for some reason, which means
>that the reader cannot easily find any prior or subsequent posts in the
>discussion thread, including all of the responses.
>
>Here's a URL to the same post, with the full thread contexting restored:
>http://tinyurl.com/2uvvk

Heh - it looks so different with the context applied. While Ron may
have picked on Bubba in the other thread, clearly the opposite was true
here. And good to note the slight of hand in quoting google - we know
that the good professor is fully aware of how deja/google works.

BTW, Bob, the best reason for 100ft tanks is that getting a true 3000psi
fill isn't a given. Certainly it wasn't for me with Equalizers. So unless
you have a healthy SAC, a small body, or a desire for splitting headaches
from skip breathing, the buoyant 80 isn't too much fun. And not having
to use a yoke-din adapter is worth a lot too. 120s...I'm not a fan of those
unless I'm in a group of familiars. Otherwise I'm likely to come up with
more than half a tank and that's excess weight carried about.

--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

jor@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (Jason O'Rourke) wrote in message news:<c2jbs0$m03$1@agate.berkeley.edu>...
> H. Huntzinger <{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> >Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com (Reef Fish) wrote:
> >> This was my response to Ron Lee's origninal post about LU, to which
> >> Ron NEVER responded, in substance:
> >> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...40posting .go
> >> ogle.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
> >
> >
> >Which uses the oddball "text only" format for some reason, which means
> >that the reader cannot easily find any prior or subsequent posts in the
> >discussion thread, including all of the responses.
> >
> >Here's a URL to the same post, with the full thread contexting restored:
> >http://tinyurl.com/2uvvk
>
> Heh - it looks so different with the context applied. While Ron may
> have picked on Bubba in the other thread, clearly the opposite was true
> here. And good to note the slight of hand in quoting google - we know
> that the good professor is fully aware of how deja/google works.


Looks like you are both archive-retrieval challenged!

That's how I ALWAYS reference the URL from groups.google.com archives.
It contains the post IN QUESTION (within a thread), the reference of
the post to which it referred, and for anyone except the clueless,
can ALWAYS to back to the referenced post and read the entire thread
if desired.


It was my ORIGINAL reply to Ron Lee's ORIGINAL post in that thread.

Ron's follow-up post did not address ANY of my reasoned comments (call
it picking on him if you will), and INVITED me to call him an IDIOT.

I obliged.

If you thought the THREAD helped, you should have read said follow-up
and Ron's subsequent whining.

-- Bob.