 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / November 2005The Shark Dive at Nassau
Here's my account of the shark dive I did at Nassau, Bahamas with Dive Dive Dive. It's one of the most exciting dives any certified scuba diver can do, if daring enough. My video still freaks out my non-diving friends. http://www.FreeSpiritActivewear.com/scubaartsharkdive.htm Clint "Clint" pepboy@videospam.co wrote in message news:NDp8f.28470$Ts.256980@weber.bread.net... > Here's my account of the spam dive I did at Nassau, Bahamas with Dive Dive If you really want to prove you're not spamming the newsgroups, post your trip reports in their entirety and ditch the link to your commercial webpage. The commercial sig is acceptable when used reasonably, i.e. in legitimate responses to others' posts. But when you make it the sole means of access to your bland "reports" on the most mundane tourist dives, it's blatant spam at its porkiest. If I were the moderator, I'd have you shot. "Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :If you really want to prove you're not spamming the newsgroups, post your :trip reports in their entirety and ditch the link to your commercial :webpage. The commercial sig is acceptable when used reasonably, i.e. in :legitimate responses to others' posts. But when you make it the sole means :of access to your bland "reports" on the most mundane tourist dives, it's :blatant spam at its porkiest. If I were the moderator, I'd have you shot. Clint, those are great reports. Keep up the good work. Don't sweat the criticism, some people are just crybabies. Dan Bracuk If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. > "Clint" pepboy@videospam.co wrote in message > news:NDp8f.28470$Ts.256980@weber.bread.net... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > of access to your bland "reports" on the most mundane tourist dives, it's > blatant spam at its porkiest. If I were the moderator, I'd have you shot. greg is becoming a gun nut, greg is becoming a gun nut >> If you really want to prove you're not spamming the newsgroups, post your >> trip reports in their entirety and ditch the link to your commercial [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> have you shot. > greg is becoming a gun nut, greg is becoming a gun nut Sez you. I said "I'd have you shot". We pay gun nuts to do it for us. >>>If you really want to prove you're not spamming the newsgroups, post your >>>trip reports in their entirety and ditch the link to your commercial [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Sez you. I said "I'd have you shot". We pay gun nuts to do it for us. one of them thar legal escapes - ya got me! > greg is becoming a gun nut, greg is becoming a gun nut Now *that* is funny. Barkeep, a belt for Joe. >>greg is becoming a gun nut, greg is becoming a gun nut > > Now *that* is funny. > > Barkeep, a belt for Joe. make it vodka, scotty! > make it vodka, scotty! Said Sulu after he learned what realligning the warp core really meant... > Here's my account of the shark dive I did at Nassau, Bahamas with Dive Dive > Dive. It's one of the most exciting dives any certified scuba diver can do, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Clint Yeah, yeah, yeah, ffftt... Pavlov would be so proud.  Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >Here's my account of the shark dive I did at Nassau, Bahamas with Dive Dive >Dive. It's one of the most exciting dives any certified scuba diver can do, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Clint Clint do you really think it is a good idea to get sharks to associate divers with food ? >>Here's my account of the shark dive I did at Nassau, Bahamas with Dive Dive >>Dive. It's one of the most exciting dives any certified scuba diver can do, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Clint do you really think it is a good idea to get sharks to associate >divers with food ? As long as the divers in question are all like Clint, I got no problems. Signaturedillon Anyone who says grown men don't cry has never taken a differential equations final. >>Clint do you really think it is a good idea to get sharks to associate >>divers with food ? I would like to respond to all the comments about my post. First of all, I will not resort to throwing insults around but instead, I would like to offer my apologies to anyone who is offended by my articles and posts. I thought that is was perfectly acceptable to have a signature with a link to a website. After all, one does not have to click on the link. As for posting the entire articles, I could but I thought that due to space, posts should be relatively short in nature and better with links to articles - correct me if I'm wrong. As for the shark dive, perhaps I'm not as experienced as some of you in diving, especially those of you who have done it all. I'm not there yet but hope to someday. I liked the shark dive as did the others in my group so it was still darn exciting to me. As whether it's ethical, I don't know as I'm not a marine biologist so I don't know if shark dives are doing any harm. This would be the same as Stingray City wouldn't it? As for my articles, they may not be the most exotic places - again, I haven't traveled as far as other more experienced divers like some of you. At least I'm trying and hopefully somebody out there may benefit from reading about the 'mundane' places I've dived in. I thought that a discussion group was a place where one can express opinions about diving and my articles are certainly that. They are my opinion as one diver. If the subject of my dive locations do not interest you, you don't have to click on the link. As I dive in more locations, I'll have hopefully more exotic places to write about. Thank you to Dan for his support. Clint > I would like to respond to all the comments about my post. First of all, > I will not resort to throwing insults around but instead, I would like to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > posts should be relatively short in nature and better with links to > articles - correct me if I'm wrong. You're wrong. Actual content is archived for posterity's sake. Whatever content may be on your commercial website is gone as soon as you can't afford the ISP bill after suffering a dramatic decrease in sales due to the rec.scuba-inspired boycott of all blatant newsgroup spammers. > As for the shark dive, perhaps I'm not as experienced as some of you in > diving, especially those of you who have done it all. I'm not there yet > but hope to someday. I liked the shark dive as did the others in my group > so it was still darn exciting to me. As whether it's ethical, I don't > know as I'm not a marine biologist so I don't know if shark dives are > doing any harm. This would be the same as Stingray City wouldn't it? In a sense. I've seen stingrays do some damage to people, so I suppose they are becoming habituated to eating DMs. It's only a matter of time. > As for my articles, they may not be the most exotic places - again, I > haven't traveled as far as other more experienced divers like some of you. > At least I'm trying and hopefully somebody out there may benefit from > reading about the 'mundane' places I've dived in. I thought that a > discussion group was a place where one can express opinions about diving > and my articles are certainly that. They are my opinion as one diver. So post them, and leave off the commercial sig. That will settle the matter once and for all as to whether you're a spammer. The only reason you post a commercial sig is to advertise. > If the subject of my dive locations do not interest you, you don't have to > click on the link. As I dive in more locations, I'll have hopefully more > exotic places to write about. I'm sure you will. Business would be terrible without the free advertising, and then you wouldn't be able to afford traveling. > Thank you to Dan for his support. Has he given you monetary support? As a neighbor Canadian, I'd wonder why he doesn't buy your outdoorwear. If he does buy your outdoorwear, I'd wonder whether Dan is in cahoots with you, a spammer by association. "Clint" wrote > I will not resort to throwing insults around . . . That'll be different for this group. > I thought that is was perfectly acceptable to have a signature with a link > to a website. Within reason, it is. > As for posting the entire articles, I could but I thought that due to > space, >> posts should be relatively short in nature and better with links to >> articles - correct me if I'm wrong. Like Greg said, you're mistaken. If you've got something you want the people here to read, post it here, provided, of course, that it's more than a poorly disguised advertisement and, of course, it's something you think will be of interest here. > As for the shark dive, perhaps I'm not as experienced as some of you in > diving, especially those of you who have done it all. None of us have done it all either, but some have done considerably more than the average resort diver. > I liked the shark dive as did the others in my group so it was still darn > exciting to me. > As whether it's ethical, I don't know as I'm not a marine biologist so I > don't know if shark dives are doing any harm. You don't have to be a marine biologist to figure this one out. It changes the shark's behavior, concentrates them at the expense of other animals when they're not being fed and it causes them to associate people with food. All of the above are bad for sharks, or any other wild animal. Many of us were around when the shark feeding debates were going on in Florida. It's a relatively hot topic every time it comes up. > This would be the same as Stingray City wouldn't it? More or less. Don't let it bother you a lot. Most of us who have done shark dives, found then pretty exciting the first time or two as well. We still get excited when we see a large shark underwater. We've just prefer to see them in their natural state and behavior. Same goes for Stingray City. We didn't get so ecologically correct until after we'd done both a few times. You'll probably do the same, eventually. Lee >"Clint" wrote > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > >Lee Clint as a follow up, yes I did a shark dive, it was on dive 8 after I certed. I went on a dive trip to Nassau and dove Friday afternoon and evening. Two dives Sat AM, two dives Sat afternoon. On Sunday we did a dive along the wall at the shark dive location, I enjoyed that dive more than the next which was over weight, kneel on the bottom at 52 feet and put your hands in your arm pits and watch. What was very interesting was we were at 52 feet for 1/2 hour and to a person we got back on the boat with less than 1K psi. Seems like a lot of air was hovered. > >>Clint do you really think it is a good idea to get sharks to associate > >>divers with food ? > > ... I thought that is was perfectly acceptable to have a signature > with a link to a website. Yes, but that is not what you did. > After all, one does not have to click on the link. As for posting > the entire articles, I could but I thought that due to space, posts > should be relatively short in nature and better with links to > articles - correct me if I'm wrong. Please consider yourself corrected (in other words, 'you are wrong'). On USENET the body of a message is generally expected contain the actual message, not be merely a short "go look here" redirection to one's own website. Exceptions are if its heavy with multimedia (binaries) which cannot be posted in a text-only group. Here, its called a "Dive Report" or "Trip Report". The value-added of this is that (a) its easier for the readers for it to already be included (especially those who download and read offline), plus (b) it will be archived better under Google Groups. > As for the shark dive, perhaps I'm not as experienced as some of > you in diving, especially those of you who have done it all. > I'm not there yet but hope to someday. Regardless of how many years we've been diving, the reason we keep going is because we all look forward to our next dive, because there's always something more to see and experience. It does, however, get a bit tiresome to hear year after year some novice make claims about the "BEST!" this or that. For example, we recently had an enthusiastic individual making claims that a particular island (which happened to be his home) figuratively had the world's best diving - - and yet he wasn't even finished doing his OW certification checkout dives yet! When someone asks you "How long have you been certified, son?" it is to perhaps encourage a little bit more perspective. This is why exception was taken to your claim of: "The shark dive is certainly one of the most exciting and memorable dives a scuba diver will ever do." Perhaps you should review some of these Howard Hall video clips (from "Island of the Sharks"): http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sharks/island/underseavideo.html FWIW, it looks like you'll have to buy the DVD for the Night Shark Dive scene...it actually took them two attempts to film it, as the first attempt had too many aggressive Silky Sharks (20-50), so the film crew aborted the dive shortly after entry. > I liked the shark dive as did the others in my group so it > was still darn exciting to me. As whether it's ethical, I don't > know as I'm not a marine biologist so I don't know if shark > dives are doing any harm. Sorry, but that's a very lame cop-out. After all, you don't have to be a murderer to know if murder is ethical or not. > This would be the same as Stingray City wouldn't it? Yes, it would. Stingray City is a favorite of Cruise Ship "Pod" People, although a few may also do a shore dive over at Eden Rock. The latter is generally reserved for those who think that by going on Royal Caribbean or Norwegen instead of Princess or Carnival that they are being "Worldly". > As for my articles, they may not be the most exotic places... Then don't represent them as such. Claims such as: "...certainly one of the most exciting and memorable dives a scuba diver will ever do" are your own undoing. You sound like one of those PADI Badge-o-Matic "Master" Diver suckers. BTW, your 'trip report' webpages are undated, which is a bad thing. Its a bad thing because the WWW now has tons of bad information online because the information became obsolete and without a listed publication date, future readers have no way of knowing if the page was brand new yesterday or is a stale and useless page put online a decade ago. For example, I'd bet a doughnut that Clint's Nassau Shark Dive here didn't even take place in 2005. Probably not 2004, either. -hh > This is why exception was taken to your claim of: "The shark dive is > certainly one of the most exciting and memorable dives a scuba diver [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > attempt had too many aggressive Silky Sharks (20-50), so the film crew > aborted the dive shortly after entry. We didn't have any silkies the night we dove Manuelita, but there were two that hung around our boat every night. A couple divers wanted to get in the water with them and film, but the captain wouldn't let them. > Sorry, but that's a very lame cop-out. After all, you don't have to be > a murderer to know if murder is ethical or not. Murder can be ethical in the right situations. But is it ethical to murder a shark just because he ate a DM? It's always bothered me that we humans insist on associating animals with human food sources, and then we always kill the animal when it decides to taste a little human flesh. Any time one of our local mountain lions eats a toddler, DFG always sends a hunter out to kill it. At least sharks can get away with it most of the time, having a big deep ocean to hide in. > Stingray City is a favorite of Cruise Ship "Pod" People, although a few > may also do a shore dive over at Eden Rock. The latter is generally > reserved for those who think that by going on Royal Caribbean or > Norwegen instead of Princess or Carnival that they are being "Worldly". I'm getting excited about my 3-day Carnival cruise in February that's headed to exotic Ensenada. I'll truly be Worldly then. Actually, I'm going to try to get the inside scoop on these pod people that I've otherwise only observed from afar. I hate knocking something until I've actually tried it. Who knows, I might like cruising just like Reef Fish. Besides, it's my 38th birthday, which means I'm really getting way too old for a "party" boat and might as well try to get one last big bang in before I settle for unworldly remote diving resorts and liveaboards. >>This is why exception was taken to your claim of: "The shark dive is >>certainly one of the most exciting and memorable dives a scuba diver [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > I'm getting excited about my 3-day Carnival cruise in February that's headed > to exotic Ensenada. I'll truly be Worldly then. Just exactly when in February? Natural disasters and phenomenon seem to follow you around. I want to make sure I steer clear of Carnival and Ensenada at the time of your travel! :-) > We didn't have any silkies the night we dove Manuelita, but there were two > that hung around our boat every night. A couple divers wanted to get in the > water with them and film, but the captain wouldn't let them. Interesting. > Murder can be ethical in the right situations. Wouldn't it then be called 'Capital Punishment'? > Any time one of our local mountain lions eats a toddler, DFG always sends > a hunter out to kill it. At least sharks can get away with it most of the time, > having a big deep ocean to hide in. Here in the East, we've yet to lose enough toddlers to our exploding black bear population for the flaming tree huggers to realize that the encroachment problems are well beyond the "secure your garbage cans" phase. And insofar as the sharks, unfortunately, we humans will still go out to seek 'revenge' and kill 3 or 4 sharks per attack, not bothering to worry of it it actually was the 'guilty' shark or not. > I'm getting excited about my 3-day Carnival cruise in February that's headed > to exotic Ensenada. I'll truly be Worldly then... Enjoy. Make sure to ask 'International Woman' Dena if there's any scuba options there :-) > Besides, it's my 38th birthday, which means I'm really getting way > too old for a "party" boat and might as well try to get one last big bang in > before I settle for unworldly remote diving resorts and liveaboards. If you count in Hexidecimal, you can claim that you're still under age 30 :-) -hh >> Murder can be ethical in the right situations. > > Wouldn't it then be called 'Capital Punishment'? If you think Capital Punishment is ethical, that an "eye for an eye" has its place in our modern times. I was thinking more along the lines of killing one person to save one or more others. > Here in the East, we've yet to lose enough toddlers to our exploding > black bear population for the flaming tree huggers to realize that the > encroachment problems are well beyond the "secure your garbage cans" > phase. And insofar as the sharks, unfortunately, we humans will still > go out to seek 'revenge' and kill 3 or 4 sharks per attack, not > bothering to worry of it it actually was the 'guilty' shark or not. Send your black bears out here. The last one spotted in my neighborhood was hit by a car and killed. In California, far more divers are killed by white sharks than white sharks are killed by divers. > Enjoy. Make sure to ask 'International Woman' Dena if there's any > scuba options there :-) She'll probably advise La Bufadora as a splendid warm water Mexico vacation dive spot. Last time I dove there, it was in the 40s at 50 feet. Naw, we're doing the wine country excursion. If I have to pay for the excursion, it might as well include free booze. > If you count in Hexidecimal, you can claim that you're still under age > 30 :-) How much is that in metric? >> This is why exception was taken to your claim of: "The shark dive is >> certainly one of the most exciting and memorable dives a scuba diver [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >that hung around our boat every night. A couple divers wanted to get in the >water with them and film, but the captain wouldn't let them. Are silkies really in that foul of a mood? I wouldn't know, myself. >> Sorry, but that's a very lame cop-out. After all, you don't have to be >> a murderer to know if murder is ethical or not. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >kill it. At least sharks can get away with it most of the time, having a >big deep ocean to hide in. To me, shark feeding is kind of stupid. Sooner or later you're going to get bit, and then somebody will howl about the "evil shark". Imagine how idiotic it would be to, say, feed a shark or a barracuda from your mouth. >> Stingray City is a favorite of Cruise Ship "Pod" People, although a few >> may also do a shore dive over at Eden Rock. The latter is generally [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I'm getting excited about my 3-day Carnival cruise in February that's headed >to exotic Ensenada. I'll truly be Worldly then. Paradise? Nice ship, actually one of the less glitzy ships in their fleet. I've got some pics I took on a ship inspection earlier this year. We sailed on the Elation, a sister ship, in June. >Actually, I'm going to try to get the inside scoop on these pod people that >I've otherwise only observed from afar. I hate knocking something until >I've actually tried it. Who knows, I might like cruising just like Reef >Fish. Besides, it's my 38th birthday, which means I'm really getting way >too old for a "party" boat and might as well try to get one last big bang in >before I settle for unworldly remote diving resorts and liveaboards. Hey, I'm 49 and still have fun on them. Although I really want to head back to Roatan. Sadly, my diving may be restricted to local lake diving, since it doesn't appear that Carol's ear is going to heal properly. Or do some diving on our trips to Hawai'i while she (shudder) shops without a net. I'll have you know that when I was your age I was younger than I am now. :-) Signaturedillon Anyone who says grown men don't cry has never taken a differential equations final. <crossposting-snipped> > Murder can be ethical in the right situations. One could make the argument that "murder" is a morally derived term and as such implicitly implies that it is not moral nor ethical... But then we get into the discussion that we previously had about what might be moral but not ethical... The term "kill" would be more appropriate in that it does not come with any preloaded moral implications and as such just states the facts -- termination of bodily functions of the target of the action... > But is it ethical to murder a shark just because he ate a DM? Well, asssuming we change the term "murder" to "kill", I would have to say that it depends on various things... Things like how good the coffee the DM makes, of course... > It's always bothered me that we humans insist on associating > animals with human food sources, and then we always kill the > animal when it decides to taste a little human flesh. We like to think that we are at the top of the food chain... When some animal comes along that doesn't quite agree with beliefs, we have to impress upon it that we really are at the top of the food chain... All in all, it's better to be at the top of the food chain -- you eat better... > Any time one of our local mountain lions eats a toddler, > DFG always sends a hunter out to kill it. At least sharks > can get away with it most of the time, having a big deep > ocean to hide in. Perhaps the individual shark gets away with it, but others of the species often get killed in retaliation... Personally, I don't have a problem with this as long as the sharks are eaten and not just wasted... There are certain animals that should be killed on sight without any regard to utilizing their meat, but sharks aren't necessarily one of them... > One could make the argument that "murder" is a morally derived term and > as Maybe one could, but it won't fly in court. I use "murder" as a legally-derived term: basically, the intentional (or extremely reckless) killing of a human. Without intent, we lawyers call it manslaughter. >> But is it ethical to murder a shark just because he ate a DM? > > Well, asssuming we change the term "murder" to "kill", I would have to say > that it depends on various things... Things like how good the coffee the > DM > makes, of course... We don't change the term "murder" to "kill". Murder is murder. If you intentionally kill a DM, for whatever the reason, it's still murder. > We like to think that we are at the top of the food chain... When some > animal comes along that doesn't quite agree with beliefs, we have to > impress > upon it that we really are at the top of the food chain... All in all, > it's > better to be at the top of the food chain -- you eat better... Tell that to the children starving in whichever African country is currently experiencing a drought. One problem those at the top suffer is overpopulation and resultant depletion of food sources. We may be able to eat whatever we want, but if we continue in that manner, we'll eventually only be able to eat what we can scrounge up. > Perhaps the individual shark gets away with it, but others of the species > often get killed in retaliation... Personally, I don't have a problem with > this as long as the sharks are eaten and not just wasted... There are > certain animals that should be killed on sight without any regard to > utilizing their meat, but sharks aren't necessarily one of them... Since when does a true Texan care about more than just the kill itself? Weren't you the guys who killed all America's buffalo for sport and left the carcasses rotting in the sun? > Maybe one could, but it won't fly in court. I use "murder" as a > legally-derived term: basically, the intentional (or extremely reckless) > killing of a human. Without intent, we lawyers call it manslaughter. Since laws were originally just a codifying of moral rules, I still say that the term "murder" could be classified as being morally derived... > We don't change the term "murder" to "kill". Murder is murder. If you > intentionally kill a DM, for whatever the reason, it's still murder. Even if he made really bad coffee? Wouldn't it then just be "justifiable homicide"? > Tell that to the children starving in whichever African country is currently > experiencing a drought. Why don't we tell them instead to not live in a fuckin' desert? > Since when does a true Texan care about more than just the kill itself? We care about BBQ too, remember? > Weren't you the guys who killed all America's buffalo for sport and left the > carcasses rotting in the sun? Nawh, we would have BBQed them... If they were left out in the sun, we were making jerky... > Since laws were originally just a codifying of moral rules, I still say > that > the term "murder" could be classified as being morally derived... We've consistently rejected, laws that attempted to codify moral rules. Prohibition is an easy example. Most laws, at least in my opinion, were practical rather than moral. The penalty for a murder conviction is intended as punishment and deterrent to future murders, not because murder is so morally bad, but because it's so damned undesirable if you're the victim. Lee > We've consistently rejected, laws that attempted to codify moral rules. > Prohibition is an easy example. Most laws, at least in my opinion, were > practical rather than moral. The penalty for a murder conviction is > intended as punishment and deterrent to future murders, not because murder > is so morally bad, but because it's so damned undesirable if you're the > victim. The victim doesn't care much after the fact. It's the victim's family and others who might depend on him or her that suffer the most. I believe in moralistic biblical times, you had to adopt the wife and children of the man you killed. Or maybe you had to kill her too and eat the children, I forget which. >> We've consistently rejected, laws that attempted to codify moral rules. >> Prohibition is an easy example. Most laws, at least in my opinion, were [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > man you killed. Or maybe you had to kill her too and eat the children, I > forget which. I think it's eat the wife and keep the children.....or at least it should be! LD. >> We've consistently rejected, laws that attempted to codify moral rules. >> Prohibition is an easy example. Most laws, at least in my opinion, were [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > you killed. Or maybe you had to kill her too and eat the children, I forget > which. obviously a lawyer problem... > We've consistently rejected, laws that attempted to codify moral rules. > Prohibition is an easy example. Most laws, at least in my opinion, were > practical rather than moral. The penalty for a murder conviction is > intended as punishment and deterrent to future murders, not because murder > is so morally bad, but because it's so damned undesirable if you're the > victim. What I'm saying though is that the original basis for these laws is morally derived... The entire list of "thou shalt not" type of things... Of course, there's different levels of "morals" and as such, Prohibition attacked one of the lesser ones... > What I'm saying though is that the original basis for these laws is > morally > derived... The entire list of "thou shalt not" type of things... Of > course, > there's different levels of "morals" and as such, Prohibition attacked one > of the lesser ones... I know. What I'm saying is that, rather than being based on morality, they are based on self interest and greed. Nobody seems to have cared when we killed others. It was only when we suspected that we were likely to be victims that we passed laws, and sentences, to try to ensure that didn't happen. Lee >>Tell that to the children starving in whichever African country is > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Why don't we tell them instead to not live in a fuckin' desert? So transplanting them to Las Vegas would not help? Matthias >>>Tell that to the children starving in whichever African country is >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > So transplanting them to Las Vegas would not help? Millions of starving Africans descending on Vegas's $9.95 all-you-can-eat prime rib buffets amidst the tourists from Kansas. That could earn more pay-per-view money than any of the boxing matches that get promoted there. >>>>Tell that to the children starving in whichever African country is >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > prime rib buffets amidst the tourists from Kansas. That could earn more > pay-per-view money than any of the boxing matches that get promoted there. So this proves that the desert is blossoming. Well, shouldn't they stay home then, and wait for the blossoms to come? Matthias > > So transplanting them to Las Vegas would not help? > > Millions of starving Africans descending on Vegas's $9.95 all-you-can-eat > prime rib buffets amidst the tourists from Kansas. That could earn more > pay-per-view money than any of the boxing matches that get promoted there. Another reality TV show in the making. I think I'll pitch it to the producers. >> Why don't we tell them instead to not live in a fuckin' desert? > > So transplanting them to Las Vegas would not help? I don't tell you where to live, or pay for you to move someplace else if where you used to live proves to be undesirable. Why should I do more for somebody I don't know than for somebody I kind of do? Lee >>>Why don't we tell them instead to not live in a fuckin' desert? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > where you used to live proves to be undesirable. Why should I do more for > somebody I don't know than for somebody I kind of do? 3xAck, but <teethgrind>... Nobody understends me ;-(. Isn't Las Vegas built in a fuckin desert? Matthias > I use "murder" as a legally-derived term: basically, the intentional (or > extremely reckless) killing of a human. Me too, but you left the word unjustified out. If it's not unjustified, it's not murder. > We don't change the term "murder" to "kill". Murder is murder. If you > intentionally kill a DM, for whatever the reason, it's still murder. Nope. It's not murder if you're not a human. It's not murder if you were insane at the time. It's not murder if it's justfied by self defense, defense of another or as the legal result of being convicted of a capital crime. > Tell that to the children starving in whichever African country is > currently experiencing a drought. They're not at the top of the food chain. > One problem those at the top suffer is overpopulation and resultant > depletion of food sources. We may be able to eat whatever we want, but if > we continue in that manner, we'll eventually only be able to eat what we > can scrounge > up. > Since when does a true Texan care about more than just the kill itself? > Weren't you the guys who killed all America's buffalo for sport and left > the carcasses rotting in the sun? No, those were tourists. Texans might have killed buffalo, but if they did, it was for profit, not for sport. Hell, even today, they're doing the same thing. Bush is killing the American way, not for sport, but for profit. Lee >> I use "murder" as a legally-derived term: basically, the intentional (or >> extremely reckless) killing of a human. > > Me too, but you left the word unjustified out. If it's not unjustified, > it's not murder. A justification is presented as a defense to murder. It's still murder, but justified. > Nope. It's not murder if you're not a human. It's not murder if you were > insane at the time. It's not murder if it's justfied by self defense, > defense of another or as the legal result of being convicted of a capital > crime. I was speaking to Grumman as if he were human. If you know something I don't, forgive me. It's not murder if Grumman were human but insane at the time because he would lack the requisite intent. It's still murder if it's justified by self-defense, it's just justifiable murder. Executioners aren't murderers, you have that one exception correct. Soldiers and cops aren't murderers either, as long as they're doing their job according to the accepted standards. So I guess one legal exception is "is a murderer . . . unless (s)he is sanctioned by the government and hired by them to kill according to the accepted standards". And then you have the Nuremburg exceptions to that exception. And that's it. > They're not at the top of the food chain. But they certainly are. They've killed off most of the other predators, except a few remnants which dodge poachers in "protected" reserves. > No, those were tourists. Texans might have killed buffalo, but if they > did, it was for profit, not for sport. Hell, even today, they're doing > the same thing. Bush is killing the American way, not for sport, but for > profit. I think part of it is sport. Look at all the fun he had landing on the aircraft carrier. >>No, those were tourists. Texans might have killed buffalo, but if they >>did, it was for profit, not for sport. Hell, even today, they're doing [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I think part of it is sport. Look at all the fun he had landing on the > aircraft carrier. No. It is a deviation called sadism. Look at the fun we would have had had he missed her. Matthias > No. It is a deviation called sadism. > Look at the fun we would have had had he missed her. Too bad Clinton wasnt smart enough to fly... > Too bad Clinton wasnt smart enough to fly... He wasn't smart enough to keep his fly zipped either... >Grumman-581" <grumman581@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM@gmail.com> wrote in message news:BlTaf.50128$5e4.41707@tornado.texas.rr.com... > > "Scott" wrote in message news:cd2dnfrEW7IaZvbeRVn-hg@wavecable.com... > < Too bad Clinton wasnt smart enough to fly... > He wasn't smart enough to keep his fly zipped either... Check your e-mail. >>No. It is a deviation called sadism. >>Look at the fun we would have had had he missed her. > > Too bad Clinton wasnt smart enough to fly... Well he zipped it to have a flight. Wasn't that smart? Matthias > A justification is presented as a defense to murder. It's still murder, > but justified. No, justification is presented a defense to an accusation of murder. If you are found to be justified, you are found not guilty of murder. >> Nope. It's not murder if you're not a human. It's not murder if you >> were insane at the time. It's not murder if it's justfied by self [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I was speaking to Grumman as if he were human. If you know something I > don't, forgive me. You were talking about the murder of a DM by a shark. A shark can't murder. It's not human. Nobody suggested that Grumman would kill the DM. > It's not murder if Grumman were human but insane at the time because he > would lack the requisite intent. It's still murder if it's justified by > self-defense, it's just justifiable murder. > Executioners aren't murderers, you have that one exception correct. > Soldiers and cops aren't murderers either, as long as they're doing their > job according to the accepted standards. So I guess one legal exception > is "is a murderer . . . unless (s)he is sanctioned by the government and > hired by them to kill according to the accepted standards". And then you > have the Nuremburg exceptions to that exception. And that's it. >> They're not at the top of the food chain. > But they certainly are. They've killed off most of the other predators, > except a few remnants which dodge poachers in "protected" reserves. In their case, whatever organisms get their bodies when their done with them are at the top of the food chain. >> No, those were tourists. Texans might have killed buffalo, but if they >> did, it was for profit, not for sport. Hell, even today, they're doing [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I think part of it is sport. Look at all the fun he had landing on the > aircraft carrier. I think part of is sport too, but you said entirely for sport. Lee > No, justification is presented a defense to an accusation of murder. If > you are found to be justified, you are found not guilty of murder. Being found not guilty does not mean that the act was not committed, it just means that the actor will not be punished for his action. OJ was found not guilty. Does that make him any less a murderer? > You were talking about the murder of a DM by a shark. A shark can't > murder. It's not human. Nobody suggested that Grumman would kill the DM. I'm sure Grumman suggested that somewhere at sometime. He's always suggesting killing people. > In their case, whatever organisms get their bodies when their done with > them are at the top of the food chain. By that rationale, every worm that eats our dead bodies is at the top of the food chain. It doesn't work that way. If they're at the top too, which creatures inhabit the bottom? >> No, justification is presented a defense to an accusation of murder. If >> you are found to be justified, you are found not guilty of murder. > Being found not guilty does not mean that the act was not committed, it > just means that the actor will not be punished for his action. OJ was > found not guilty. Does that make him any less a murderer? For legal purposes it does and you were the one that set that context. > By that rationale, every worm that eats our dead bodies is at the top of > the food chain. It doesn't work that way. If they're at the top too, > which creatures inhabit the bottom? Those with the means to enforce their position. There's a reason they call it the circle of life. Lee >> Murder can be ethical in the right situations. Not by any definition I might use. If it's ethical, it's not murder. > The term "kill" would be more appropriate in that it does not > come with any preloaded moral implications and as such just states the > facts -- termination of bodily functions of the target of the action... Seems I recall something that might suggest otherwise. Let me see, yes, that's it. "Thou shalt not kill." If I'm not mistaken that's a moral, or maybe ethical commandment. >> But is it ethical to murder a shark just because he ate a DM? It's not murder if the victim is a shark. The correct question is, is it ethical to kill a shark just because he ate a DM? The answer is, probably not unless, of course, you have reason to believe it's about to eat another. There aren't that many people around foolish enough to work as a DM. We can't have sharks eating all of them. >> It's always bothered me that we humans insist on associating >> animals with human food sources, and then we always kill the >> animal when it decides to taste a little human flesh. Life's a bitch, ain't it? > We like to think that we are at the top of the food chain... When some > animal comes along that doesn't quite agree with beliefs, we have to > impress > upon it that we really are at the top of the food chain... All in all, > it's > better to be at the top of the food chain -- you eat better... That's what being at the top of the food chain is all about. >> Any time one of our local mountain lions eats a toddler, >> DFG always sends a hunter out to kill it. At least sharks >> can get away with it most of the time, having a big deep >> ocean to hide in. Different issue, at least they claim it is. There's a presumption that a moutain lion that loses his fear of humans sufficiently to kill and eat one, will kill and eat more. The only choices I know of to prevent that are to cage the animal, in a zoo, for example, or to kill it. > Perhaps the individual shark gets away with it, but others of the species > often get killed in retaliation... Sharks very rarely eat humans, or so we're told. They have been known to take a taste, but we're led to believe that we're just not all that tasty. Killing one shark in retaliation for the acts of another, is not ethical. On the other hand, killing them because you honestly believe that they will kill someone soon, is, even if you're wrong. > Personally, I don't have a problem with this as long as the sharks are > eaten and not just wasted. Tough call. First, you have to define waste. You might consider a shark that is caught, finned and dumped at sea as wasted. Others, not me in particular, might feel differently based on the fact that his body is returned to the food chain it came from. I'm not all that concerned with the waste, but I am concerned with the greed. Kill one shark, once in a while, for your own soup and I don't particularly mind. Kill thousands and I mine very much. You're taking more than your fair share. > There are certain animals that should be killed on sight without any > regard to utilizing their meat, but sharks aren't > necessarily one of them. Name one. Lee >>The term "kill" would be more appropriate in that it does not >>come with any preloaded moral implications and as such just states the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that's it. "Thou shalt not kill." If I'm not mistaken that's a moral, or > maybe ethical commandment. Not quite. Linguistic efforts in the bibles language tell us that they had different words for different ways of crossing the Styx river. Like the Inuit people know different words for snow. "Thou shalt not murder" would be a more appropriate transliteration. Thou shalt not kill sounds a bit hilarious when you count the many occasions when the elders were obliged to kill, with god on their side. Wonder why they weren't given pumpguns. Matthias >>>But is it ethical to murder a shark just because he ate a DM? > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > Lee > Not quite. Linguistic efforts in the bibles language tell us that they had > different words for different ways of crossing the Styx river. Hey, the words were written by God, on tablets of stone, and sent do the faithful as commandments. I have to think that they meant what they said . . . unless of course, you think God made a mistake. > "Thou shalt not murder" would be a more appropriate transliteration. Not having seen the tablets, I can neither agree nor disagree. > Thou shalt not kill sounds a bit hilarious when you count the many > occasions when the elders were obliged to kill, with god on their side. > Wonder why they weren't given pumpguns. Darned if I know, ask God. Lee >>Not quite. Linguistic efforts in the bibles language tell us that they had >>different words for different ways of crossing the Styx river. > > Hey, the words were written by God, on tablets of stone, and sent do the > faithful as commandments. I have to think that they meant what they said . > . . unless of course, you think God made a mistake. God said to Abraham "kill me a son". Among else. Later, for instance, when his smoking flying saucer led the israelite tribes through the Sinai, he ordered that each of his avidst followers should kill members of their own family. Later, they were to slaughter on command several ethnic groups who's land they were told to occupy. Nobody even told them about oil. >>"Thou shalt not murder" would be a more appropriate transliteration. > > Not having seen the tablets, I can neither agree nor disagree. No need to, imho. You cannot equate the disapproved "killing" of the ten commandments with the approved killings following the laws f.i. given in the Levitics. To make a difference, this difference should at least be found in the language, and lost in later translations, because other translators didn't care to elaborate. >>Thou shalt not kill sounds a bit hilarious when you count the many >>occasions when the elders were obliged to kill, with god on their side. >>Wonder why they weren't given pumpguns. > > Darned if I know, ask God. May be there was a shortage of carrying permits then. Matthias . > >>Wonder why they weren't given pumpguns. > > > > Darned if I know, ask God. > > May be there was a shortage of carrying permits then. Not enough range. Geo >> Hey, the words were written by God, on tablets of stone, and sent do the >> faithful as commandments. I have to think that they meant what they said >> . . . unless of course, you think God made a mistake. > God said to Abraham "kill me a son". Ahhhh, but did he mean it? Besides, morality it for man. The rules are different for God, himself. Men have been killing other men in God's name as long as there have been men to do the killing. > No need to, imho. You cannot equate the disapproved "killing" of the ten > commandments with the approved killings following the laws f.i. given in > the Levitics. Your definition works no better unless the killing of Abraham's innocent son isn't murder? >>>Thou shalt not kill sounds a bit hilarious when you count the many >>>occasions when the elders were obliged to kill, with god on their side. >>>Wonder why they weren't given pumpguns. >> Darned if I know, ask God. > May be there was a shortage of carrying permits then. Nah, carrying permits would be Caesar's and, as we all know, we are to render unto Caesr that which is Caesar's. Lee > May be there was a shortage of carrying permits then. They were issued in stone, so there was a definite backlog at the issuing athority... >> May be there was a shortage of carrying permits then. > > They were issued in stone, so there was a definite backlog at the issuing > athority... The real problem was that, being issued in stone, and being required to be carried whenever a weapon was, those that had them didn't get out much. Lee > Seems I recall something that might suggest otherwise. Let me see, yes, > that's it. "Thou shalt not kill." If I'm not mistaken that's a moral, or > maybe ethical commandment. If I remember correctly, "kill" is not exactly the correct translation... > Different issue, at least they claim it is. There's a presumption that a > moutain lion that loses his fear of humans sufficiently to kill and eat one, > will kill and eat more. The only choices I know of to prevent that are to > cage the animal, in a zoo, for example, or to kill it. Yep, need to ween it from todlers and give it a taste for zookeepers... <evil-grin> > Tough call. First, you have to define waste. You might consider a shark > that is caught, finned and dumped at sea as wasted. Others, not me in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > while, for your own soup and I don't particularly mind. Kill thousands and > I mine very much. You're taking more than your fair share. I figure that if you kill a shark, you should be eating shark filets for awhile... > Name one. Mosquitos Fire Ants Cockroaches Silverfish Rats / Mice Chihuahuas Dachshunds > If I remember correctly, "kill" is not exactly the correct translation... It must be. It was devinely inspired and must, therefore, be divinely true . . . and universally understood. Lee >> If I remember correctly, "kill" is not exactly the correct translation... > > It must be. It was devinely inspired and must, therefore, be divinely > true . . . and universally understood. If God is so omnipotent, why didn't he just write the Bible in English? If God doesn't speak English, how the heck is he going to understand all those prayers? > If God is so omnipotent, why didn't he just write the Bible in English? If > God doesn't speak English, how the heck is he going to understand all those > prayers? That'll make a good t-shirt or bumper sticker... >>>If I remember correctly, "kill" is not exactly the correct translation... >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > God doesn't speak English, how the heck is he going to understand all those > prayers? The english were pretty much underdevelopped tose days. Clubs and peat smoked water, all that. Therefore S/h/e/it wrote it in a language common to those in posession of WMD. Like today. Matthias > The english were pretty much underdevelopped tose days. Still are. > Clubs and peat smoked water, all that. Pete wasn't smoking the water, ya dummy. It's called a bong. Aren't you next door to Holland? You should know about that stuff. > Therefore S/h/e/it wrote it in a language common to those in posession of > WMD. Like today. They said shee-it back then too? >>The english were pretty much underdevelopped tose days. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > They said shee-it back then too? Of course. This gave later birth to the concept Sheitan. Matthias >>> If I remember correctly, "kill" is not exactly the correct >>> translation... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If God doesn't speak English, how the heck is he going to understand all > those prayers? All great communicators consider their audience. At the time the Bible was written, there were no English speakers in the audience. Lee > >> If I remember correctly, "kill" is not exactly the correct translation... When the Christians of different countries started killing each other, and the Christians in the same country killed each other too, of course someone had to make up some story that the Hebrew kill is not the English kill, and the rest of the bull sh.t that goes with the Best Seller Fiction of all time. > > It must be. It was devinely inspired and must, therefore, be divinely > > true . . . and universally understood. You guys are in bull sh.tting in the WRONG group. You should go to alt.christian.religion and do a google search on the keywords "I am God" with "reef fish" as the author and you'll find out who the REAL God is! > If God is so omnipotent, why didn't he just write the Bible in English? If > God doesn't speak English, how the heck is he going to understand all those > prayers? First of all, God didn't write the Bible! It was Fiction co-authored by a bunch of old men when they had too much wine to drink, and too little to entertain themselves about 30 A.D. (because if there had been a God, he would have given them flat-screen TV to watch the Saints, CD to listen to all that Gospel chanting and foot stomping, instead of waiting 2000 years. and would have had ready-made Charleton Heston movies to tell those tales -- why would ne heed a Bible? Then God would have wringed the necks of all those hypocritical bastards and kill them all himself, for killing each other while saying God had told them, through Moses actually <the fella who tied his a.s on a tree and walked 7 miles thus proving that God had made the most elastic substance in his creation, skin>, "Thos Shalt Not Kill". I am now in God's real Hell, called Florida. I tried to wipe out all those mistakes of my creation (the Floridians) every year, by sending a few hurricane to be my hatchet men. The fact that none of them worked was proof that I am NOT omnipotent! Talk about some people are slow in learning God's truth. The Hilton Garden Inn in Ft. Lauderdale has started operation again 4 days ago, the cruiseships are talking off there this weekend, and the legally blind Floridians are still driving on the road ... wait till next year! I'll send them a hurriicane they'll never forget, for all their sacrilege acts. Meanwhile, be good to each other, my Children. > When the Christians of different countries started killing each other, > and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > all > time. If the Chinese character for kill is the same as the one for murder, that's even more proof that God is Chinese. Instead of listening to the damn serpent, Adam was supposed to eat it, stir-fried with chili, garlic, and ginger. > You should go to alt.christian.religion and do a google search on the > keywords "I am God" with "reef fish" as the author and you'll find out > who the REAL God is! At best you're his Son and should be crucified immediately. > At best you're his Son and should be crucified immediately. I've got a couple of 2x4s... Think we can find a couple of nails with his name on it? >> "Greg Mossman" wrote in message >> news:11mqis29bt4dif9@corp.supernews.com... >> At best you're his Son and should be crucified immediately. > I've got a couple of 2x4s... Think we can find a couple of nails with his > name on it? He's in Florida. We no longer use crosses, burning or otherwise. The alligators, however, are always available. Lee >>When the Christians of different countries started killing each other, >>and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > serpent, Adam was supposed to eat it, stir-fried with chili, garlic, and > ginger. You mean all this mess we have now is due to a shortage of spices? Matthias > When the Christians of different countries started killing each other, > and the Christians in the same country killed each other too, of course > someone had to make up some story that the Hebrew kill is not the English > kill, > and the rest of the bull sh.t that goes with the Best Seller Fiction of > all time. >> > It must be. It was devinely inspired and must, therefore, be divinely >> > true . . . and universally understood. > > You guys are in bull sh.tting in the WRONG group. Nope, we're in the right group. We have enough wackos here to serve our needs. No need to go looking for more. > First of all, God didn't write the Bible! It was Fiction co-authored > by a bunch of old men when they had too much wine to drink, and too little > to entertain themselves about 30 A.D. Presumably, they were inspired. Just what they were inspired by is open to question. > (because if there had been a God, he would have given them flat-screen TV > to watch the Saints, CD to listen > to all that Gospel chanting and foot stomping, instead of waiting 2000 > years. All things in good time. > Then God would have wringed the necks of all those hypocritical > bastards . . . One of the strongest arguments against the existance of God is that Jimmy Swaggart said he had to raise millions or be called home to God, he wasn't called home to God. We all lived in hope. The radio tower, however, was reportedly hit by lightening and while the broadcast was out, Jimmy miraculously reached his contribution goal. I suppose God still helps those that help themselves, but I sure wish he's quit helping some. > I am now in God's real Hell, called Florida. I tried to wipe out all > those mistakes of my creation (the Floridians) every year, by sending a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > their > sacrilege acts. Those aren't Floridians, they're Canadians driving rental cars. Enjoy your cruise and try to unwind a bit. You're still wound to tight for your continued health. Lee > Here's my account of the shark dive I did at Nassau, Bahamas with Dive Dive > Dive. It's one of the most exciting dives any certified scuba diver can do, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Clint I will be diving with Stuart Cove in december, thanks for the post! > > Here's my account of the shark dive I did at Nassau, Bahamas with Dive > Dive [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I will be diving with Stuart Cove in december, thanks for the post! There's not much difference between those, except the PRICE, as I indicated in my 1993 post: =====> " DDD" July 15, 1993 1. Why I chose to dive with DDD, and not Nassau Scuba Center, or Stuart Cove's Dive South Ocean, or some other dive operation in Nassau? The reason was entirely economical -- no consideration was given to other scuba divers' praise or gripe about the operation, because as a seasoned dive-bum, I can generally take care of myself, and not have to worry about how good or bad the DMs are, so long as the dive operation has a reasonable setup for diving, such as a decent dive boat, which I knew DDD has because I dove with them once before. =====> end excerpt from "DDD" 1993 If you do a google groups advanced search with author "reef fish" and keywards "Nassau shark dives", you'll find my postings since 1992 (in 98 threads) about ALL five different kinds of shark dives in Nassau, with Dive Dive Dive, Stuart Cove's, and other shops in Nassau. http://tinyurl.com/8agcb "Nassau Shark Dives (LONG)" was my post in January 1993 describing the different kinds of shark dives in Nassau, including the Bull Shark Alley dive Clint wrote about. The only minor faux pas (or peccadillo as James F. Kilpatrick would say) would be calling Nassau Shark dives "Caribbean shark dives", because Nassau the the rest of the Bahamas are in the Atlantic Ocean, and not the Caribbean Sea. In fact I have written about some people can dive in the Caribbean but NOT in the Bahamas because they are allergic to some of the floatsam brought by the Gulf Stream. Moreover, the salinity of the Atlantic around Nassau is LESS than that of the Caribbean and I could tell the difference by the LEAD I needed to dive in each. :-) They are exciting "staged" shark dives -- exciting in their own way, but not as exciting as diving with un-chumed sharks (thicker than the Nassau chumbed counterpart) in their natural environments, such as in Coco's and some of the French Polynesian islands. -- Bob. -- Bob. >> Here's my account of the shark dive I did at Nassau, Bahamas with Dive > Dive [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I will be diving with Stuart Cove in december, thanks for the post! Have fun down there! Glad you appreciated the post. Clint |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.