 |
 | 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 2005Cozumel Anchor Ahoy
Today (Nov 15) is the second day the port is re-opened to cruise ship, requiring all ships to be anchored or moored because all the cruise ship piers had been severely damaged by hurricane Wilma. Four cruise ships are in Cozumel today, and tomorrow -- the most this week, with only one ship scheduled to come in on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, according the Festival annoucement on Nov 11: http://www.cometocozumel.com/english/wilma/default.asp The Star Princess anchored at approximately 7:15 am (local), and passengers are being tendered to shore by boats I've not see in Cozumel before -- several identical blue-and-yellow ferry size boats, with capacity of 400-500 passengers (according to the Princess patter briefing) instead of the much smaller tenders of the cruise ship. These must be ferry boats brought from Cancun, for the tendering tasks this week. Even with those large special tenders, the transfer of 2,600 passengers to shore is expected to take 2-3 hours. The Star Princess is anchored at a distance of between 1/2 and 3/4 miles from shore -- a surprisingly long distance away, possibly as a special rule for the week that anchoring must be outside the boundry of the marine part, It's directly off the shore of the Puerta Maya Pier where the ship would have docked had the pier not been destroyed by Wilma. 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. So, that's good news. Reefs and diving will not be adversely affected in any way by the presence of the cruise ships, provided the DIVE SHIOPS themselves have sufficiently recovered (or survived) from hurricane Wilma's physical and economical impact. This is the first time in 18 years that we are in Cozumel WITHOUT our dive gears, because it didn't appear that Cozumel could handle the cruise ship traffic by yesterday, when we left home 10 days ago. We had already written off Grand Cayman as a port to dive since we had already done all the sites that are worth diving there (within striking distance of the cruise ship) and we were already sick of diving Stingray City (having done it more than a dozen times, and sat out the last two). None of the other ports of call is worth the trouble of getting wet. :-) 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. > For those divers who are concerned with the anchoring cruise ships > damaging the reefs of Cozumel dive sites, I can say positively and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > damage any coral (if there's any at that distance and depth) that is > ever Just curious... Could you find out what's the depth of the water where they're anchoring... > > For those divers who are concerned with the anchoring cruise ships > > damaging the reefs of Cozumel dive sites, I can say positively and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Just curious... Could you find out what's the depth of the water where > they're anchoring... 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. >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 > >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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Ron Lee 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! -- 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Grow up, little Poster Boy! 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.)<<< Hmmm, seems like a lot of trivia added to "I'll ask tonight". More fun than the kitten has with a mouse. Curtis Curtis is exactly right below. Bob is so full of himself that he can't see the obvious. Ron Lee >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Curtis > 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >> > >> Grow up, little Poster Boy! >> 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 > 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Grow up, little Poster Boy! in person, does poor bob ling show signs like these of ESL? > -- Bob. 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 >>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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Ron Lee > For those divers who are concerned with the anchoring cruise ships > damaging the reefs of Cozumel dive sites, I can say positively and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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. > So, that's good news. Cruise ships are always bad news.  Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' <crossposting-snipped> > Cruise ships are always bad news. Not necessarily... They might make good wreck dives... > > For those divers who are concerned with the anchoring cruise ships > > damaging the reefs of Cozumel dive sites, I can say positively and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 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. 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! 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: <<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. 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. > > So, that's good news. > > Cruise ships are always bad news. Only to the myotic and prejudiced. -- Bob. >>>For those divers who are concerned with the anchoring cruise ships >>>damaging the reefs of Cozumel dive sites, I can say positively and [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > 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. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -- Bob. Imagine that... a pod person calling me myotic and prejudiced. How quaint. :) Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > >>>For those divers who are concerned with the anchoring cruise ships > >>>damaging the reefs of Cozumel dive sites, I can say positively and [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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. > >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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. <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 f.ck? > <crossposting-snipped> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 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 f.ck? No, it would have been Peeping Jacque or Peeping Michel. Leave Tom out of this! ;) -- Bob. > 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... > > 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. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I wasn't commenting on whether it stirred up any sand... I was just curious > from a technical point of view... But that was the major complaint of "jer" and others, about how the anchoring of cruise ships would damage the corals, and then when I saw how far the ship was from shore, "jer" brought up the issue that it would affect the mating eagle rays -- when he didn't realize how far the eagle ray mating site was OR the current direction. But the answer to your question of how DEEP was the spot at which the ship anchored, I asked one of the three ship Captains at the luncheon today, and he said it was anchored, but he didn't know how deep. But THE answer came from THE Chief Captain that the spot was 200 meters (I estimated over 400 feet) from the bottom of the channel at that spot, which made it too deep to drop anchor, so that ship was held in position by running on the surface, as you suspected it might do, as the cruise ship you were on did it in Alaska. So, there goes one more of the popular complains of how cruise ships damage the corals by dropping anchor. The ship patter ALWAYS calls it "drop anchor" when it's not docked, perhaps for the reason of not having to explain how the ship can be held in position without any anchor. End of that story. -- Bob. > But the answer to your question of how DEEP was the spot at which > the ship anchored, I asked one of the three ship Captains at the > luncheon today, and he said it was anchored, but he didn't know how > deep. > But THE answer came from THE Chief Captain that the spot was > 200 meters (I estimated over 400 feet) from the bottom of the channel > at that spot, which made it too deep to drop anchor, so that ship was > held in position by running on the surface, as you suspected it might > do, as the cruise ship you were on did it in Alaska. Does that make you feel safer knowing that one of three captains couldn't even tell correctly whether the boat was anchored or not? Thank god for autopilots. > > But the answer to your question of how DEEP was the spot at which > > the ship anchored, I asked one of the three ship Captains at the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > even tell correctly whether the boat was anchored or not? Thank god for > autopilots. The Star Princess has 4 Captains. The one I happened to ask first obviously did not have any duty with the anchoring or positioning of the cruise ship IN COZUMEL pn that particular day, Nov. 15, 2005. You think Captain/Prez George Bush would know how deep a hole he has dug at various places in Iraq and the rest of the world? ;-) -- Bob. > The Star Princess has 4 Captains. The one I happened to ask first > obviously did not have any duty with the anchoring or positioning of > the cruise ship IN COZUMEL pn that particular day, Nov. 15, 2005. > > You think Captain/Prez George Bush would know how deep a hole > he has dug at various places in Iraq and the rest of the world? ;-) No, but I would hope that if he didn't know whether or not there were WMD in Iraq, that he wouldn't tell us he was sure that they were there. All the captain had to do was tell you he didn't know. Instead, he made up an answer. When your ship is sinking in the middle of the Caribbean after it's swamped by Tropical Storm Gamma, are you going to blindly follow his directions? Heck, they're probably not even telling you about the impending doom. When your internet access suddenly cuts out, you'll know why. > No, but I would hope that if he didn't know whether or not there were WMD > in Iraq, that he wouldn't tell us he was sure that they were there. How quickly y'all forget who agreed with him. WE remember. Curtis > > No, but I would hope that if he didn't know whether or not there were WMD > > in Iraq, that he wouldn't tell us he was sure that they were there. > > How quickly y'all forget who agreed with him. > > WE remember. They didnt forget, election year is coming. They, and especially Greg, are lying. It's what they do best. > > The Star Princess has 4 Captains. The one I happened to ask first > > obviously did not have any duty with the anchoring or positioning of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > No, but I would hope that if he didn't know whether or not there were WMD in > Iraq, that he wouldn't tell us he was sure that they were there. What about the neuclear and chemical weapons the United Nations team of investigators found no evidence, and Bush said he was sure they were there which threathen the USA, and waged his invasion unilaterally to raise his popularity and approval rating to his all-time high of 90%. I was in the extreme end of the 10%. > All the captain had to do was tell you he didn't know. Instead, he made > up an answer. Not quite that. He did say he didn't know that depth. He COULD have made up an answer of 300 ft. He probably was in charge of the anchoring of the ship elsewhere or at other times, and simply assumed it was the usual. He did suggest me asking the depth question to a different captain who would know (presumably the one who was in charge of the Cozumel stop). I asked the Chief captain instead. > When your ship is sinking in the middle of the Caribbean after it's > swamped by Tropical Storm Gamma, I am more informed and less gullible than most people you might know. I already knew that Gamma had dissipated last night because I was having an argument with one "poncholiner" who said several days ago that Wilma would hit Cozumel next Monday, and I told him trackers couldn't even predict the hurricanes TWO days in advance -- that he should at least wait before crying wolf. > are you going to blindly follow his directions? Heck, they're probably > not even telling you about the impending doom. Save your breathe for the rec.scuba politicians you spar with. Your pointless rhetoric is blowing like the ocean breeze. > When your internet access suddenly cuts out, you'll know why. Of course I'll know, because it suddenly cuts out half a dozen times a day -- see, you should stick with things you KNOW and have some experience with. The satallite connection and the ship's software connection via relays has not attained the consistency in reliability of even our neuclear defensive system yet. End of this OT tangent. -- Bob. >> When your ship is sinking in the middle of the Caribbean after it's >> swamped by Tropical Storm Gamma, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > couldn't even predict the hurricanes TWO days in advance -- that he > should at least wait before crying wolf. Dissipated? Like I said . . . "Tropical Storm Gamma - the 24th storm of the busiest hurricane season on record - formed Friday off the coast of Central America, and forecasters said it could threaten Florida by the beginning of next week, perhaps as a hurricane. "Tropical storm warnings were issued for the coast of Belize and the Bay Islands of Honduras. Mexico issued a tropical storm watch for the eastern Yucatan Peninsula, which was hit hard in October by Hurricane Wilma. Six to 15 inches of rain were possible. "At 10 p.m. EST, Gamma's maximum sustained winds were near 45 mph and it was located about 45 miles north-northwest of Limon, Honduras, and about 175 miles east-southeast of Belize City, Belize, moving northwest at near 5 mph." > Bob Ling "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1132371624.332749.94710@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com > [Greg wrote] > >> When your ship is sinking in the middle of the Caribbean after it's [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > said it could threaten Florida by the beginning of next week, perhaps as a > hurricane. NOAA reporting was suspended on Thursday, but it reformed and they resumed tropical storm reporting with the 4pm EST advisories on Friday. > "Tropical storm warnings were issued for the coast of Belize and the Bay > Islands of Honduras. Mexico issued a tropical storm watch for the eastern [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > miles east-southeast of Belize City, Belize, moving northwest at near 5 > mph." Today's 4AM EST Current strike probability values for Cozumel are: MMCZ 205N 869W 9 18 2 X 29 (2nd column is "1AM SUN TO 1PM SUN") The two prior reports had been (10pm & 4pm, respectively: MMCZ 205N 869W 2 16 6 1 25 MMCZ 205N 869W 2 12 7 2 23 Which is showing a ~3% growth per report cycle in the CZM strike probability. As such, a claim a half week ago by Mr. Poncholiner of the proximilty of the storm to Cozumel could indicate that he has a high degree of intuitive knowledge as to the general historical tracks of storms - - particularly since the 'spaghetti map' is particularly divergent right now: http://www.weatherunderground.com/tropical/tracking/at200527_model.html Its models currently showing 2 tracks clearly to the west of Cozumel, 1 right over, 1 clearly east and 2 predicting a sharp turn East then South, hence NOAA's comment (4AM today) of: "THE GLOBAL MODELS DISSIPATE GAMMA OR KEEP IT TRAPPED IN THE WESTERN CARIBBEAN SEA DURING THE NEXT 5 DAYS... WHICH SEEMS UNREASONABLE GIVEN THE VERTICALLY DEEP CIRCULATION NOTED IN THE 00Z UPPER-AIR DATA. AS SUCH...THE OFFICIAL FORECAST TRACK LEANS MORE TOWARD THE GFDL SOLUTION SINCE THAT MODEL MAINTAINS A DEEP TROPICAL CYCLONE THROUGH 120 HOURS." Overall, sustained winds are only expected to be 50mph for the weekend, so it looks like strong rains and strong winds for far eastern Mexico to delay their ongoing cleanups. Clearly, it could be much worse, particularly if upper wind shear hadn't partially broken up Gamma at all this past week: we shouldn't forget that it was 73 years ago this very month that Hurricane #10, a CAT 4/5, ripped through Western Caribbean with fatal results. http://www.nationaltrust.org.ky/info/ringofstones.html -hh Looks like Bob should not sound "All clear" until it really is clear. Ron Lee >>> When your ship is sinking in the middle of the Caribbean after it's >>> swamped by Tropical Storm Gamma, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >miles east-southeast of Belize City, Belize, moving northwest at near 5 >mph." <crossposting-snipped> > The Star Princess has 4 Captains. The command structure seems to be a bit different aboard a cruise ship vs a military ship... The majority of the "ship's officers" are actually just managers of the various sections dealing with cargo (i.e. passenger) handling... The actual crew members of the ship that are involved in the running of the actual ship are rarely seen... Most of the 'officers' that you meet aboard the ship have very little if any knowledge of the mechanical systems aboard the ship... It's possible that the heads of various departments might have a rank of 'Captain', but not be the actual Captain of the vessel... >>>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. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > held in position by running on the surface, as you suspected it might > do, as the cruise ship you were on did it in Alaska. Okay, it's too deep at that spot. Good to know. It ain't that deep at a lot of other spots in the world. RCI considers this method of station holding to equal "not docked", therefore diesel engine exhaust and bilge pumps full engaged, even when close to shore for extended periods. Maybe someone is Alaska ought to go deal with those arrogant nasty cruise bitches and show them what's it's really like to sh.t in somebody else's mess kit. Interesting how the pod pigs foul the very ocean they claim to value enough to be worth scam^H^H^H^H er...selling. To highlight your oinkiness oink... http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRS/abstract.cfm?NLEid=54226 oink... http://www.serconline.org/cruiseShipPollution.html oink... http://www.akpirg.org/issues/cruise.htm oink... http://www.earthisland.org/eijournal/new_articles.cfm?articleID=147&journalID=46 If reading all this doesn't keep you busy enough while you're trolling around on your garbage scow with your Captain Pig, just ping me, there's plenty more where this came from. > So, there goes one more of the popular complains of how cruise > ships damage the corals by dropping anchor. So, now you're expecting this one issue to settle all the others? Are we to believe those anchors they haul around all over the place are never used? Your own ignorance is appalling. Your own arrogance is your Achilles heel. > The ship patter ALWAYS calls it "drop anchor" when it's not docked, > perhaps for the reason of not having to explain how the ship can be > held in position without any anchor. > > End of that story. Hardly. > -- Bob "Pod Pig" Ding-a-Ling. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > >>>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. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Okay, it's too deep at that spot. Good to know. It ain't that deep at > a lot of other spots in the world. jer, you really have trouble focussing your attention in a discussion. don't you? We were talking about ... the Star Princess anchoring in Cozumel. Jer brought out the adverse effect of it on eagle ray mating sites in Cozumel. I had completely demolished jer's faulty theory and erroneous facts. That should have been the END of that FOCUSED discussion. Look what new tangents jer brought out now ... having lost all his credibility about the eagle ray in Cozumel issue ... > RCI considers this method of station > holding to equal "not docked", therefore diesel engine exhaust and bilge [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > around on your garbage scow with your Captain Pig, just ping me, there's > plenty more where this came from. You're doing ALL the oinking on a completely related subject to the ongoing discussion -- which you obviously had trouble focusing. Keep hugging your trees viewed from your myotic, prejudiced views about the "pod people" -- remember that? > > So, there goes one more of the popular complains of how cruise > > ships damage the corals by dropping anchor. Oh yeah, about the coral damage -- now it had been proven that the anchor wasn't even dropped! And there was absolutely NO stir up of sand, and absolutely NO coral damage ... and jer starting oinking at another stile, after he had been barking at the wrong tree. > So, now you're expecting this one issue to settle all the others? Of course not! But only an oinking, prejudiced MORON (I can call you that now, because you have shown it amply) to bring out issues that were not even remotely related to the EAGLE RAYS in COZUMEL when that issue had been completely settled. > > The ship patter ALWAYS calls it "drop anchor" when it's not docked, > > perhaps for the reason of not having to explain how the ship can be > > held in position without any anchor. > > > > End of that story. That was the end of the ANCHOR story, to Grumman-581. The story about the damage to corals and the eagle ray mating site had ended LONG before now, jer! > Hardly. > > > -- Bob "Pod Pig" Ding-a-Ling. You have only proven your own lack of a logical mind, your inability to conduct a focussed discussion, and your ability to engage in your "pissing behavior" when you started it all by saying you were not going to be in any pissing contest, and proceeded to do so immediately, and incessantly ever since. I kept my part of my word -- kept MY discussion strictly factual and focussed on the Star Princess in Cozumel and the alleged harm done by the anchor, and to the eagle rays in Cozumel. -- Bob. >>>>>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. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > jer, you really have trouble focussing your attention in a discussion. > don't you? I don't think so. If you can't keep up, that's your problem. But your a pod person, what can we expect? > We were talking about ... the Star Princess anchoring in Cozumel. Not anymore. > Jer brought out the adverse effect of it on eagle ray mating sites in > Cozumel. Yes, the adverse effect, which wooshed right over your pointy little pod head, was about anchor damage. You said Capt. P.I.G. of the Star Princess Garbage Scow wasn't using an anchor - which isn't about kicking up the sand ruining visibility, it's about anchors destroying the feed beds of eagle rays in a nationally protected wildlife park. Okay, fine, no anchor damage because they're not using anchors - we now learn the Star Princess Garbage Scow is using her diesel engines for station keeping. You've heard about air pollution? It's been a contentious issue for a while now for all the right reasons. Are you so busy stuffing your pie hole to pay attention to the results of your own piggish behaviour? As a passenger of the Star Princess Garbage Scow, you're obligated to stand there and take whatever I dish out. You need to remember this, even if you have to tattoo it on your pod pig heinie. > I had completely demolished jer's faulty theory and erroneous facts. There's no theory here, and they're not my facts. But you're a pod person, we expect you to be easily misled and confused. > That should have been the END of that FOCUSED discussion. It will end when your piggish behaviour ends. Until then, stand there like the pod pig your are and take it. > Look what new tangents jer brought out now ... having lost all his > credibility about the eagle ray in Cozumel issue ... ...only in your little pod pig mind. >>RCI considers this method of station >>holding to equal "not docked", therefore diesel engine exhaust and bilge [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > You're doing ALL the oinking on a completely related subject to the > ongoing discussion -- which you obviously had trouble focusing. I'm not having trouble focusing, you're having trouble keeping up. And I'm only getting warmed up. For the rest of you, take a seat and heat up the popcorn. > Keep hugging your trees viewed from your myotic, prejudiced > views about the "pod people" -- remember that? Somebody has to hug the trees since you won't. >>>So, there goes one more of the popular complains of how cruise >>>ships damage the corals by dropping anchor. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and jer starting oinking at another stile, after he had been barking > at the wrong tree. Just a nit, it's style, not stile. But you're a pod pig, no surprises here. >>So, now you're expecting this one issue to settle all the others? > > Of course not! But only an oinking, prejudiced MORON (I can call > you that now, because you have shown it amply) to bring out > issues that were not even remotely related to the EAGLE RAYS > in COZUMEL when that issue had been completely settled. You can call me names if you like, I don't care. You can even insult my mother if you like, she and I are all grown up, we can take it. >>>The ship patter ALWAYS calls it "drop anchor" when it's not docked, >>>perhaps for the reason of not having to explain how the ship can be [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > going to be in any pissing contest, and proceeded to do so > immediately, and incessantly ever since. How 'bout I changed my mind...? how 'bout I yank your little pod person chain? my pissing will end when I piss in your pod beer. But you're a pod person, what would you know? Are you still tossing the garbage off the back of your garbage scow in the dead of night when nobody is expected to notice your piggish behaviour? As an ex-pod person and diver that cares about the environnment, I noticed. > I kept my part of my word -- kept MY discussion strictly factual and > focussed on the Star Princess in Cozumel and the alleged harm > done by the anchor, and to the eagle rays in Cozumel. > > -- Bob "Pod Pig" Ding-a-Ling. Tell us about how your precious garbage scow had it's plumbing rearranged to allow for dumping the bilge at sea instead of keeping it on board until back in port. You do know what's in the bilge, don't you? Here's a tip: hydraulic fluid. Ask your precious Capt. P.I.G. about it. He's the smart guy, remember? They never lie. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > > You're doing ALL the oinking on a completely related subject to the > > ongoing discussion -- which you obviously had trouble focusing. Bad typo. I meant "completely UNrelated" subject. > >>>So, there goes one more of the popular complains of how cruise > >>>ships damage the corals by dropping anchor. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Just a nit, it's style, not stile. But you're a pod pig, no surprises here. You're a good one to pick spelling nits. jer> But your a pod person, what can we expect? Don't you know the difference between "you're" and "your"? Moron, style and stile are the same (see Merriam-Webster below). Main Entry: 1style Pronunciation: 'stI(&)l Function: noun Etymology: Middle English stile, style My stile was my misspelling for 1 : a pen or enclosed housing for swine That's why you were oinking at other sties. > > You have only proven your own lack of a logical mind, your inability to > > conduct a focussed discussion, and your ability to engage in your [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > How 'bout I changed my mind...? how 'bout I yank your little pod person > chain? That would not even bother me as much as a bite by a GNAT. You have only shown, by exposing yourself, that this "pod person" knew more about Cozumel eagle rays, and have hundreds or perhaps thousands more dives in Cozumel that you have, while you're wallowing in your pigsty in Mexico City. That's what you succeeded in establishing as your credential in this cruise ship/ Cozumel/Eagle ray thread. Your "pod people" actually is appropriate for some (a few) of the posters in rec.travel.cruises, such as the Goldie twins Ray and Dick Goldhaber, as well as some of those yapping Old Ladies <tm> who only congrat each other on their birthdays, what they eat at breakfast, while they don't know the LEAST even about the piers and locations in which they have cruised. But you managed to INSULT a larger number of the readership in rec.travel.cruises by your clueless self about marine biology, ecology, and everything related to marine life and cruising. > my pissing will end when I piss in your pod beer. And you'll drown yourself in your own piss! If you aren't so clueless, you would have known that I don't DRINK (alcoholic drinks), much less beer, which I had characterized numerous times as something that looks and smells like what had been recycled though a horse. I am sure THAT's your favorite breverage, from the horse next to your pigsty. > > I kept my part of my word -- kept MY discussion strictly factual and > > focussed on the Star Princess in Cozumel and the alleged harm > > done by the anchor, and to the eagle rays in Cozumel. > > > > -- Bob "Pod Pig" Ding-a-Ling. You have finally succeeded in provoking me to piss back at you in your pigsty, even though you're sure to drown in your own piss there, without any help from me. -- Reef Fish Bob. > But you managed to INSULT a larger number of the readership in > rec.travel.cruises by your clueless self about marine biology, ecology, > and everything related to marine life and cruising. Are you implying that pod people are more attuned to the envrionment and more knowledgable about marine biology than divers? And what's this about a ship with a "captian" who didn't know how much water he had under his keel? I can't imagine anyone in any position of command of a vessel who wouldn't know that fundamental bit of information. > > my pissing will end when I piss in your pod beer. > > And you'll drown yourself in your own piss! If you aren't so > clueless, > you would have known that I don't DRINK (alcoholic drinks) Well, except for "flavoring" your coffee with Kahlua ;-) > > But you managed to INSULT a larger number of the readership in > > rec.travel.cruises by your clueless self about marine biology, ecology, > > and everything related to marine life and cruising. My post stands on what *I* said, not edited and misrepresented version by some no-life multi-newsgroup idiot Alan Street. > Are you implying that pod people are more attuned to the envrionment > and more knowledgable about marine biology than divers? I implied no such. As I said, MY post stands on what *I* said. Besides jer is hardly a diver; and divers are hardly marine biologists. -- Reef Fish Bob. > > > But you managed to INSULT a larger number of the readership in > > > rec.travel.cruises by your clueless self about marine biology, ecology, > > > and everything related to marine life and cruising. > > My post stands on what *I* said, not edited and misrepresented > version by some no-life multi-newsgroup idiot Alan Street. And once again you're replying to your own words. You really do need to keep these things straight, Feesh. Otherwise people will start to think you're senile because you keep arguing with yourself. > > Are you implying that pod people are more attuned to the envrionment > > and more knowledgable about marine biology than divers? > > I implied no such. As I said, MY post stands on what *I* said. And *you* said that people in rec.travel.pod-life would be insulted (or more accurately, INSULTED) by Jer's comments about everything related to marine life. Since Jer basically said pod people such as yourself are selfish pigs who unnecessarily pollute the marine environment, I take it you don't agree with his comments and are saying that pod people are ecologically sensitive and informed. If I'm mistaken, please feel free to clarify your statement. > Besides jer is hardly a diver; and divers are hardly marine > biologists. You're correct that divers are hardly marine biologists. But divers in general, and especially experienced divers, are more attuned to the marine environment that cruise ship patrons. > And once again you're replying to your own words. You really do need to > keep these things straight, Feesh. Otherwise people will start to think > you're senile because you keep arguing with yourself. Start? He is wacky as a wood watch. > > > > But you managed to INSULT a larger number of the readership in > > > > rec.travel.cruises by your clueless self about marine biology, ecology, > > > > and everything related to marine life and cruising. > > > > My post stands on what *I* said, not edited and misrepresented > > version by some no-life multi-newsgroup idiot Alan Street. Alan, you have added absolutely NOTHING to what you had already posted and I had already responded in the two lines above. > And *you* said that people in rec.travel.pod-life would be insulted (or > more accurately, INSULTED) by Jer's comments about everything related > to marine life. Since Jer basically said pod people such as yourself Alan, you're just too DUMB and OBTUSE that jer's stereotypical naming of ALL people who cruise as "pod people" is the INSULT already. And YOUR "rec.travel.pod-life" is YOUR stereotypical insult of ALL the people in rec.travel.cruises, because by your own admission you have never read or posted in that group, on through a few cross-posted posts, many of which initiated by Forgers and IDIOTS like yourself! Get lost, you ignorant fool! -- Reef Fish Bob. > > > > > But you managed to INSULT a larger number of the readership in > > > > > rec.travel.cruises by your clueless self about marine biology, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Alan, you have added absolutely NOTHING to what you had already > posted and I had already responded in the two lines above. Once again you're responding to your own words. You remind me of a little yapper dog, barking as hard as it can at it's own reflection in the mirror. Such a sad decline from your lofty days of yore, eh Feesh? >>>You're doing ALL the oinking on a completely related subject to the >>>ongoing discussion -- which you obviously had trouble focusing. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Don't you know the difference between "you're" and "your"? Guess what...? you passed the test. I knew you weren't as stupid as you seem to be. > Moron, style and stile are the same (see Merriam-Webster below). > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > That's why you were oinking at other sties. Okay, your contestual implication was misunderstood by me. My bad. >>>You have only proven your own lack of a logical mind, your inability to >>>conduct a focussed discussion, and your ability to engage in your [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > know the LEAST even about the piers and locations in which they have > cruised. No surprises there. I've never heard of a cruise company offering a clue to their clients about marine ecology. It's been some years since I went pigging around the oceans, so things may have changed by now. Perhaps a clarification from you could prove helpful. Of course, even if they did, I'd suspect their particular slant to be rife with half-truths, inuendo, conjecture, etc. - anything but the real truth. The truth would free the cruise companies from the obligation of collecting your money for a booking. And that's really what's going on here, isn't it? Cruise companies collect various sums to float pod people around for entertainment. Nothing wrong with that, per se. If they could do this without oinking the environment, I'd still be a client. Truth is, they can't, or they don't want to. Either way, they've lost me, and I'm staying lost until they clean up their business model. > But you managed to INSULT a larger number of the readership in > rec.travel.cruises by your clueless self about marine biology, ecology, > and everything related to marine life and cruising. I never said I, nor any other diver, was a marine biologist. I, and other readers around here are just divers. As such, most of us care enough to make an effort at doing what we can. OTOH, doing something stupid is supposed to be painful - either stop doing it, deal with it or just get over it. Simple really. But I'm reminded of the mind set of my audience here - they're going to have a good time regardless of who they have to screw over to get it. This callous disregard for one's personal enjoyment is somewhere between disgusting and contemptible. I know it's difficult for selfeesh pigs to decide, but decide you must. You sow, you harvest, and now you're seeing the result on your table. If you or your pod buddies can't eat it, you have nobody to blame but yourself, so you might as well lay back and enjoy it because we're only getting warmed up. Pase las palomitas de maiz y el liquido hidraulico, por favor. >>my pissing will end when I piss in your pod beer. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I am sure THAT's your favorite breverage, from the horse next to your > pigsty. Okay, we now learn you don't like beer. Fine, I do. Is there a point somewhere besides the top of your little pod head? How much more pointless blather from pods must we all endure? Stop it! You're killing me Little Pod Feeshy! Ohhh, the humanity! >>>I kept my part of my word -- kept MY discussion strictly factual and >>>focussed on the Star Princess in Cozumel and the alleged harm [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > without > any help from me. Okay, fine, go ahead, make my day pod person. > -- Reef Fish Bob "Pod Pig" Ding-a-Ling. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > >>>and jer starting oinking at another stile, after he had been barking > >>>at the wrong tree. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Guess what...? you passed the test. I knew you weren't as stupid as > you seem to be. Says the buffoon with a foot thrusted into his mouth. You are beginning to act like Ron Lee, who nitpicked on two misspellings, and Ron misspelled "misspelling" himself!! That's a classic! You jer, who wrote "your" for "you're" nitpicked my misspelling! > > Moron, style and stile are the same (see Merriam-Webster below). > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Okay, your contestual implication was misunderstood by me. My bad. Of course it's your "bad". You mean "contextual" didn't you, Mr. Oink ? ROTFLMAO! jer> >>my pissing will end when I piss in your pod beer. > > And you'll drown yourself in your own piss! If you aren't so clueless, > > you would have known that I don't DRINK (alcoholic drinks), much less [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Okay, we now learn you don't like beer. If you had not been such a Clueless Newbie in rec.scuba and rec.scuba.locations, you would have known it long time ago. > > You have finally succeeded in provoking me to piss back at you in your > > pigsty, even though you're sure to drown in your own piss there, > > without any help from me. > > Okay, fine, go ahead, make my day pod person. Why should I? I am happily cruising back to Port Everglade, planing to have a little dinner, even show, and have a little fun at blackjack, while you wallow in your Mexico City pigsty, and trying to be even a worse Spelling Cop than IDIOT Ron Lee! Buenas noches, -- Reef Fish Bob. >You are beginning to act like Ron Lee, who nitpicked on two >misspellings, and Ron misspelled "misspelling" himself!! > >That's a classic! Perhaps Bob, but I can spell "nuclear." Ron Lee >You are beginning to act like Ron Lee, who nitpicked on two >misspellings, and Ron misspelled "misspelling" himself!! Actually Bob you have had many misspelled words lately. Are you feeling ok? Of course you can spell "idiot" but that may have been the first word you spoke as a child. Hmm. You still do. And you do it in a child-like manner. Yet your physical appearance is that of an adult. Quite the contradiction we have here. Or maybe it is all too clear. Ron Lee >>You are beginning to act like Ron Lee, who nitpicked on two >>misspellings, and Ron misspelled "misspelling" himself!! [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Ron Lee I'm beginning to think his affection with that word is tied to the name used for him as a very young child. My brother's name was Dammit. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >>>>>and jer starting oinking at another stile, after he had been barking >>>>>at the wrong tree. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > You mean "contextual" didn't you, Mr. Oink ? ROTFLMAO! So glad you liked it - sneaking that in there was pretty slick, huh? You understand the 'slick' part, I'm sure. no? It's the sheen on the surface of the wake behind your big pod boat. Get it? ROFLMMFAO! Joke's on you Slick! > jer> >>my pissing will end when I piss in your pod beer. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > If you had not been such a Clueless Newbie in rec.scuba and > rec.scuba.locations, you would have known it long time ago. Gee Slick, we all gotta start somehwere. >>>You have finally succeeded in provoking me to piss back at you in your >>>pigsty, even though you're sure to drown in your own piss there, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > you wallow in your Mexico City pigsty, and trying to be even a worse > Spelling Cop than IDIOT Ron Lee! You don't drink beer and I don't gamble. We both learned something new. As soon as I kick this off, I'm off to catch sight of a brown eagle catching breakfast for it's family before your pollution kills it's food supply. I expect someone will toss my post off the stern tonight with the rest of today's pod leftovers, and someone else will have to clean up after the pod party. Speaking of tossing lunch, how's that group hug thing going? > Buenas noches, > > -- Reef Fish Bob "Pod Pig" Ding-a-Ling aka "Slick". Oh and by the way, I have more for your time in the porcelain throne room. Always trying to help you and your pod buds over in rec.travel.cruises oink... http://starbulletin.com/2003/10/18/business/story1.html oink... http://www.foe.org/new/releases/bwncruise41305.pdf oink... (kinda old, but it still stinks like it's new) http://www.planeta.com/planeta/96/0896cruise.html And you're welcome. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > Says the buffoon with a foot thrusted into his mouth. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You jer, who wrote "your" for "you're" nitpicked my misspelling! right, from the author of "Says the buffoon with a foot thrusted into his mouth" ESL bob? > No surprises there. I've never heard of a cruise company offering a > clue to their clients about marine ecology. It's been some years since > I went pigging around the oceans, so things may have changed by now. > Perhaps a clarification from you could prove helpful. One of the cruise companies, Royal Caribbean, has an ocean lab on board thier ship Explorer of the Seas. http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/rccl/ I am just posting the above for your information. I and probably most of the other regular readers of rec.travel.cruises don't have any interest in your tête-à-tête with Reef Fish. SignatureCharles > > No surprises there. I've never heard of a cruise company offering a > > clue to their clients about marine ecology. It's been some years since [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > -- > Charles Charles, jer's mind had already been made up, that you're just another of the "pod people". Information? What for? You think piggy-jer is interested in FACTS? His has given ample proof that his life style (as opposed to his sty) is, "My pig-head mind is made up, about you pod people. Don't confuse me with facts!" As for what you called jer's "tête-à-tête with Reef Fish", it more like jer's tête-à-derriere with himself! ou, tête dans son propre orifice rectal -- Reef FIsh Bob. >>>>>For those divers who are concerned with the anchoring cruise ships >>>>>damaging the reefs of Cozumel dive sites, I can say positively and [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > 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. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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 f.cking anchors out of the f.cking 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 [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > 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 a.s 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. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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 f.cking with anything that don't belong to you. > Just THINK about your own faulty logic and hypocrisy. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 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 sh.t - I keep my yap shut because I don't want the pod people f.cking 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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > 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> Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' >> 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. Bob is correct. The fish poop sand in Coz will settle within seconds (well under thirty). I know because I have tested it. >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 f.cking >anchors out of the f.cking park, or Sundays won't be the only days he >and his ilk aren't invited. I suspect that cruise ship are the main source of revenue in Cozumel. Money talks as we saw when the new cruise ship pier (Puerto Maya?) was built over strong diver concern for Paradise Reef. If you have not seen the eagle rays in quantity north of town it is an awesome sight. Ron Lee > >>>>>For those divers who are concerned with the anchoring cruise ships > >>>>>damaging the reefs of Cozumel dive sites, I can say positively and [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > see when diving. You either need to try harder to keep up or put your > dinner forks down and take notes. Wasn't it YOU who said you were not interested in any pissing contest and proceeded to piss big time? In keeping with what I said that at least you have something about scuba AND cruising to talk about, and I welcome any disagreement and I am going to continue giving you factual rebuttal or substantiated opinion, and not sink to YOUR level of myopic view, prejudice, AND pissing without cause. My breakfast forks are down, justing waiting for a little shopping in Montego Bay a little later. So, on with MY part of the discussion of the issue of eagle ray mating, against your populist and prejudiced view against "pod people", without any knowledge about marine biology, ecology, but only your own view supported by some of your local pals. So, how many DAYS have you been in Cozumel since 1987? How many DIVES have you done there, to have acquired your vast amount of MISINFORMATION and ignorance about Cozumel diving, marine animals, and your unsubstantiated views about cruise ships? > > Those are FACTS -- anyone familiar with the geography of the island > > of Cozumel could have told you the same thing. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Maybe, maybe not, I don't really care. Why don't you care? I brought up the eagle ray mating phenomenon which *I* was the first to post about in rec.scuba in 1998, the first to mention to dive shop owners like Darwin of Equalizer who couldn't believe there could be as many as over a dozen eaglerays within one screen of a video shot. The YOU are the one who started pissing about how YOU and Cousteau had discovered it years earlier and tried to keep in under the lid, for whatever silly reason you had even if you DID find some mating eagle rays of much smaller proportions. In terms of your allegation that Cousteau opened his mouth long before 1998, you'll have to find some FACTS to substantiate it, and not just your faulty recollection. I do recall some article in Alert Diver (DAN publication) version of Scuba Diving Magazine, which mentioned the eagle ray mating phenomenon -- but only YEARS after I had seen and reported about it. Whether that article was by Cousteau of some other writer I can't recall now. But you can't just claim Couteau found it and opened his mouth, long before 1998, WITHOUT any substantiation. > >>>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 [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > over your pointy little head, is about your crummy anchors. They have > no business in a wildlife protected area, aka national park. You called what you said a rational discussion of any issue? The GOVERNMENT of Cozumel determined the boundary and scope of the marine park and wildlife protected areas. Do you even KNOW what those are? I've DIVED plenty of times outside of the marine park (national park) areass, such as Maracaibo, the East Side of Cozumel, and parts outside of Punta Sur, where crabs, lobsters are regularly havested by LOCALS, and served at the Prima restaurant every night when those are in season. You DON'T even know if the cruiseship was within the wildlife protected area, but the ultimate absurdity of your statement is that the REGULATION agency that made up the definition and rules pertaining to the Cozumel marine park is the same authority that gave permission for the cruiseships to DOCK or ANCHOR there! In that respect, they are re-defining the rules of which you seem to be completely oblivious, blinded by your own prejudices. > Next time > you and your scrummy captain do each other, tell him to get his f.cking > anchors out of the f.cking park, or Sundays won't be the only days he > and his ilk aren't invited. See my paragraph above. If you have any complaint about the cruise ships in Cozumel, start with you LOCAL government, and see yourself laugh out of the court house there. > > Next, you're talking about Man interfering with the natural environment > > of marine animals as being "idiots", your pissing, hypocrisy, and [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > 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 points were: marine animals are surprising adaptive to changes, in line with the "survival of the fittest" law that lasted millions of years. The corollary point is that you seem to have very limited experience about such phenomena that are clearly visible OUTSIDE the little pond of Cozumel in which do a few video, and you made up your own "theory for the myopic and prejudiced" base on your own LACK of scientific as well as observational experience. Those are the points what whooooshed over your head, jer! > > 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. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Quotient go beyond that? I'm just curious how far your pod a.s is > willing to go. You reading comprehension is severely lacking. You can search over 100,000 posts I've made in USENET and you won't find a SINGLE one in which I am not as strongly against the illegal shark fish, as well as the legal dragnet of shrimp-fishing. But the point you missed and misdirected your pointless and irrelevant issue of "endangered species" to the present discussion of eagle ray mating site in Cozumel, is not only a clear sign of your inability to focus on ANY issue, but your failure to observe that neither the white tip sharks or shrimps are ever among the endangered species, and even the Alaskan King Crabs, which were endangered in some areas of Alaska in the 1980s, made such a comeback (in according with the law of "survival of the fittest") that it's now found in nearly EVERY grocery store, served in resturants and on cruiseships. It's one of my FAVORITE seafood! I even drive 150 miles to the New Orleans Manor in Nashville which serves a seafood buffet with UNLIMITED Alaskan King Crab in the menu. The point is, jer, you're so fixated with your unsupported theory about marine life that you are stone BLIND to all of the related FACTS that are known and scientifically studied every day! |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message