 |
 | 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 / June 2006What are the best scuba cruises in Caribbean?
I'm considering taking a liveaboard scuba cruise on one of the scuba fleets like the Aggressor, Netkon, Peter Hughes or any other fleet operating in the Caribbean. I don't want to be on a "cattle ship" and am looking for a class operation which has good diving as well as offering courses and other learning opportunities as well as having good accomodations. Any recommendations and comments will be appreciated. Thanks, Sy  SignaturePlease post and reply to sytech@yahoo.com > I'm considering taking a liveaboard scuba cruise on one of the scuba > fleets like the Aggressor, Netkon, Peter Hughes or any other fleet [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Sy accommodations on any liveaboard are quite small - cattle boats - not usually. I was on the Nekton 24 dicer I believe - some dive early at a spot some leave a little later <sytech@yahoo.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :I'm considering taking a liveaboard scuba cruise on one of the scuba :fleets like the Aggressor, Netkon, Peter Hughes or any other fleet :operating in the Caribbean. I don't want to be on a "cattle ship" and :am looking for a class operation which has good diving as well as :offering courses and other learning opportunities as well as having :good accomodations. Nekton, Peter Hughes, Aggressors and Explorers are all good fleets. They all have nice boats and offer courses. For learning opportunities, consider Nekton. They have nightly presentations on turtles, corals, pretty fishies, etc. Some of the reports on this page, http://www.pathcom.com/~bracuk/Trips/, are for Caribbean liveaboards. Dan Bracuk If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. WE've been on Hughes and Nekton. We liked them both. Nekton holds 30-32 depending on which boat. First dive-everyone at once then people tend to space them out as the week goes on. Dancer was about 20 and plusher, hot towels after the dives, cocoa with Bailys after the night dives. Depending on where you live and the destination, it can be a lot cheaper leaving from FL. on Nekton. >I'm considering taking a liveaboard scuba cruise on one of the scuba >fleets like the Aggressor, Netkon, Peter Hughes or any other fleet [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Sy > I'm considering taking a liveaboard scuba cruise on one of the scuba > fleets like the Aggressor, Netkon, Peter Hughes or any other fleet > operating in the Caribbean. Of these fleets, Nekton is the new kid in the neighborhood and the only one that calls its fleet "Diving cruises", rather than liveaboard. Until Nekton added its new destination of Cayman Islands, I woudl have said the Cayman Aggressor is by far the liveaboard of choice, based on my annual dives on the Cayman Aggressor from 1990 to 2004, and the other Caribbean locations on both the Aggressor and the Peter Hughes fleets. The itinerary of the Nekton Cayman is very similar to that of the Cayman Aggressor. Its introductory offer of $300 off (I couldn't find the price for the week's charter) would have enticed me, had I not have all the diving I wanted to do in the Cayman Islands. -- Bob. "Reef Fish" <Dr_Bob_Ling@Yahoo.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :The itinerary of the Nekton Cayman is very similar to that of the :Cayman Aggressor. Its introductory offer of $300 off (I couldn't :find the price for the week's charter) would have enticed me, had :I not have all the diving I wanted to do in the Cayman Islands. When I was in Little Cayman last December, word on the boat was that Nekton would not be able to put divers into the Marine Park because there was a 20 diver per boat rule. Don't know if the word was true or not, but that was the word. Dan Bracuk If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. > "Reef Fish" <Dr_Bob_Ling@Yahoo.com> pounded away at his keyboard > resulting in: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > there was a 20 diver per boat rule. Don't know if the word was true > or not, but that was the word. If that were/is true, then one may as well forget about the Cayman Nekton, because everything worth diving in GCM. LCM, and the Brac are in the Marine Park, especially Little Cayman, where the majority of the dives are -- on Bloody Bay Wall. -- Bob. >> When I was in Little Cayman last December, word on the boat was that >> Nekton would not be able to put divers into the Marine Park because [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Marine Park, especially Little Cayman, where the majority of the dives > are -- on Bloody Bay Wall. And then it obviously wouldn't make sense for the Rorqual to move to the Caymans and compete with the Aggressor. But they are, so presumably they can. Here's the Marine Park Regulations, courtesy of the Cayman Islands Port Authority. I see nothing about a 20 diver maximum: (Besides, the Cayman Aggressor with 18 passengers makes more than 20 divers if over two of the crew are in the water too) Marine Parks Regulations Replenishment Zone No taking conch or lobster by any means. Line fishing and anchoring are permitted. Spear guns, pole spears, fish traps and nets are prohibited, except that fry and sprat may be taken with a fry or cast net. Marine Park Zone No taking any marine life, alive or dead. Line fishing from shore is permitted (no boats). Line fishing at any beyond the drop off is permitted. No anchoring - use of fixed moorings only. Boats of sixty (60) feet or less may anchor in sand, so long as no grappling hooks are used and neither the anchor, rope nor chain lies on coral. Anchoring is permitted is designated Port anchorage areas. Anchoring prohibitions may be suspended during emergencies by order of the Port Director. Commercial use of the Bloody Bay Marine Park in Little Cayman is limited to operations which have been licensed by the Marine Conservation Board. Environmental Zone No taking any marine life, alive or dead, with no exceptions. Public may access at speeds of five (5) knots or less, but there may be no anchoring of any boat and no in-water activities. http://www.caymanport.com/business_coastal.htm#MARINE%20CONSERVATION%20LAWS "Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :Here's the Marine Park Regulations, courtesy of the Cayman Islands Port :Authority. I see nothing about a 20 diver maximum: :http://www.caymanport.com/business_coastal.htm#MARINE%20CONSERVATION%20LAWS Maybe it's part of this: http://www.divecayman.ky/sites/marineparks.asp Bloody Bay, Little Cayman - Special restrictions have been placed on the use of the Bloody Bay Marine Park, no commercial operations may use the park without a licence from the Marine Conservation Board. Or, maybe, as I first said, the word on the boat was not true, or was then but not now. Dan Bracuk If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. > "Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> pounded away at his keyboard > resulting in: > > :Here's the Marine Park Regulations, courtesy of the Cayman Islands Port > :Authority. I see nothing about a 20 diver maximum: Even if there was such a rule, the Cayman Aggressor NEVER violated it, in my years of annual diving on that liveaboard. First of all, many of the charters are NOT filled to the capacity 18. In fact, the quad cabin seldom accommodates more than 2 passengers. And seldom are more than two members in the water at the same time. Even then, the entire 18 passengers would have be ALL in the water at the same time also. In short, it's a non-event that never happened, to the best of my observation and statistical knowledge. :-) > :http://www.caymanport.com/business_coastal.htm#MARINE%20CONSERVATION%20LAWS > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the use of the Bloody Bay Marine Park, no commercial operations may > use the park without a licence from the Marine Conservation Board. Have you ever wondered WHY all those years in which I dived the Cayman Aggressor (which was the ONLY liveaboard to dive there except the Little Cayman DIver?) while the Peter Hughes Fleet was competing directly with the Aggressor on all the other popular locations: Belize, Bay Islands, and Turks and Caicos? I did, and asked Wayne Hasson about it. The answer was that the Board that approves NEW VESSELS of any kind to operate commercially in the Cayman Islands was very protective about letting "outsider" in. Perhaps now the Board is relaxing the old rules of admission of non-native owned vessels and perhaps even some Marine Park rules. In any event, only time will tell whether Nekton is taking reservations before the coast is clear, or they are using the "special" as a trial balloon to find out how much they can charge for their week's charter and STILL fill that floating hotel. :-) > Or, maybe, as I first said, the word on the boat was not true, or was > then but not now. Why don't somebody give the Nekton headquarter a PHONE CALL and report here the latest rumor according to Nekton? The deadline of the $300 discount is May 31, which is barely over a week from now. -- Bob. Just spoke to Karen at Nekton re 20 person limit. Anyone over 20 on the Rorqual gets put on a day boat to do bloddy wall. > > "Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> pounded away at his keyboard > > resulting in: [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > -- Bob. > Just spoke to Karen at Nekton re 20 person limit. Anyone over 20 on > the Rorqual gets put on a day boat to do bloddy wall. That's quite a clever solution...and it thumbs the nose at the entrenched "rule mongers" who were trying to use the rules as an anti-competitive hammer. FWIW, any idea whose dayboat? My bet would be first on McCoy's, then Paradise. -hh "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :FWIW, any idea whose dayboat? My bet would be first on McCoy's, then :Paradise. My guess is their own chase boats. Dan Bracuk If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. > "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> pounded away at his keyboard > resulting in: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > My guess is their own chase boats. Good point. FWIW, this will probably infuriate the protectionists who tried to keep them out entirely (by occupying a second one of "their" moorings), but the Rules do allow operations to put more than one boat per day in the Marine Park...I think the limit's 3 or 4? -hh > "Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> pounded away at his keyboard > resulting in: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > :http://www.caymanport.com/business_coastal.htm#MARINE%20CONSERVATION%20LAWS I also didn't notice the "Max number of boats per day" rule either. > Or, maybe, as I first said, the word on the boat was not true, or was > then but not now. No, what you heard was correct. And the reality here is that there's little new "Rules" that pop up that attempt to restrict free trade to favor the established locals. On Little Cayman, I'd expect to hear a new rule very soon regarding what size boats are allowed on what dive site moorings, under the supposed rationale that some are subject to being pulled out if the ship's too heavy. ...of course, broken moorings weren't considered a problem when National Geographic and Howard Hall was filming a movie there a decade ago on a ~100ft expedition ship. Go figure. -hh > ...because everything worth diving in GCM. LCM, and the Brac are in the > Marine Park, especially Little Cayman, where the majority of the dives > are -- on Bloody Bay Wall. Bloody Bay wall is overdived IMO. Except for a couple of behavior-modified groupers, a few rays and turtles, much of the marine life that used to be there ten years ago has long since left for quieter reefs. YMMV on if it has anything to do with all those day operations' Newton diveboats that are rigged for carrying more than 20 divers into the Marine Park <wink>....or if it was fished out by the local Rotary's fishing tournament (its legal to troll right off the drop-off). BTW, since your last trip to the Caymans, Bob, "Prince Frederic" was found. A fascinating site. And I'd consider it to be unlikely that you've ever been in the belly of Rock Monster, either, since I've never seen the Aggressor in that neighborhood either. But please do continue to advocate staying on the beaten path. -hh > > ...because everything worth diving in GCM. LCM, and the Brac are in the > > Marine Park, especially Little Cayman, where the majority of the dives [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > life that used to be there ten years ago has long since left for > quieter reefs. Ah, but those are only the tourist attractions, not that they aren't fun to be with. Have dived with ALL those known friendly groupers, and two different manta rays, and the one-eyed dolphin that visited the brac. The BEST of the bloody bay wall, to me, are those vertical walls, some of which recessed inside the vertical line, full of luxious corals and good sites for shark and turtle watching. Those SITES are seldom dived -- I could name 2 or 3 that was visited by the Cayman Aggressor only once or twice in my 14 trips in 14 years. And then when the Aggressor is at those sites, most of the divers are above the Cayman depth rule of 120' (or 110'), so very few of them ever saw the BEST parts of the Bloody Wall Bay! > BTW, since your last trip to the Caymans, Bob, "Prince Frederic" was > found. A fascinating site. And I'd consider it to be unlikely that > you've ever been in the belly of Rock Monster, either, since I've never > seen the Aggressor in that neighborhood either. True. The Aggressor has never been OFF the Bloody Bay Wall and the Jackson Wall -- which comprise only a small part of Little Cayman. If I wanted to sample some unusual sites, I wouldn't be diving the Cayman Aggressor. But the sites the CA visits are generally the best available to a commercial liveablard operation there. > But please do continue to advocate staying on the beaten path. Sure, Hugh. The 20+ different islands (not counting the few in the Society Island) in French Polynesia where I have dived within the past few years are what you consider "the beaten path"? If you want to dive a REAL beaten path, try diving Easter Island, and then come back and tell us about the cattle boats there. BTW, Cayman diving is very rigidly regulated as to how long a boat can stay on the same mooring, and how many boats can be in the same vacinity at one time. -- Bob. > > > ...because everything worth diving in GCM. LCM, and the Brac are in the > > > Marine Park, especially Little Cayman, where the majority of the dives [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Ah, but those are only the tourist attractions... But which you've endorsed (per above) as "everything worth diving". Now you're trying to distance yourself from them? > Have dived with ALL those known friendly groupers... You're free to call modified behavior "friendly", but it is still behavior modification. > The BEST of the bloody bay wall, to me, are those vertical walls, > some of which recessed inside the vertical line, full of luxious corals > and good sites for shark and turtle watching. "To you", and because you go on to explain that you've only done these sites very rarely, its likely just their novelty that makes them appealing ... to you. > Those SITES are seldom dived -- I could name 2 or 3 that was > visited by the Cayman Aggressor only once or twice in my 14 > trips in 14 years. Bzzt. They're only "seldom dived" by the Aggressor. The Aggressor has a pretty rigid mooring schedule: Randy's Gazebo is usually the first stop on Little Cayman, etc. The reality is that these vertical walls are very routinely featured on the dayboat trips. Next time you're on the CA IV, just watch where they go. This means that since you consider the vertical sites to be a "treat", you simply just need to get off the rut you're in on the Aggressor and get onto any of the dayboats. You'll be able to do the verticals 2-3-4 times per week, depending on which operation and weather permitting. Come join me this fall and we'll go dive them until you're as sick of their big, flat, boring topology as I am...I even promise to not accidentally push you off the back of the boat while we're crossing the Bight. > > BTW, since your last trip to the Caymans, Bob, "Prince Frederic" was > > found. A fascinating site. And I'd consider it to be unlikely that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > But the sites the CA visits are generally the best available > to a commercial liveablard operation there. And yet you're endorsing (per above) only the Bloody Bay area as the "everything worth diving" having never looked elsewhere. And yet you complain that they don't usually go to the vertical sites you claim to prefer. ...while continuing to try to deny that your Cayman Aggressor diving is in a rut . > > But please do continue to advocate staying on the beaten path. > > Sure, Hugh. ...French Polynesia... You know that I meant your "beaten path" in the Caymans, where you've claimed that "everything worth diving" is in Bloody Bay, despite your own admission that you've never tried anywhere else. Based on your own admission of 14 trips that have been mostly limited to the Bloody Bay area, how many *different* Cayman Sister Island dive sites have you actually dived on? My educated guess would be that you've dived: Magic Roundabout (aka Nancy's), Meadows, Eagle Ray, JBW, Cumber's, and Bus Stop in Jackson's, plus Mixing Bowl (aka 3 Fathoms), Marilyn's, Donna's, Randy's, Ringer's, GW E&W, and Joy's Joy in Bloody Bay, plus hopefully Soto Trader on the South side. That's a mere 16 sites of the 45+ moorings that Little Cayman has to offer, even though I'm giving you credit for 4 more than the dozen sites that the Aggressor's website lists for Little Cayman: http://www.aggressor.com/_images/divemaps/cayman.gif Either way, you've missed well over 50% of Little Cayman. And on Cayman Brac, there's officially another 53+ sites (and unofficially over 90), of which you've done the 356 wreck and probably nothing else (a whopping 2%). Between these two, you've missed probably 80% of the known dive sites when making your judgement of "everything worth diving". FYI, the sites I've referred to have moorings that the CA IV would be permitted to use, so Wayne Hasson doesn't have that excuse. And YMMV on how much Wayne's personal opinions on "dive site quality" are probably influenced by pragmatic issues the financial aspect of burning the fuel to go further, as well as pleasing the customer base who's only interested in the "famous stuff" because of brainwashing from literally decades of product hype. It is irritating to have to dive there on a day with crappy conditions (20ft viz) just because some wonk is demanding that he "HAS TO" dive the famous site. > BTW, Cayman diving is very rigidly regulated as to how long a > boat can stay on the same mooring, and how many boats can be > in the same vacinity at one time. But simply not at all documented within the rules that Greg provided, nor necessarily enforced. Just like how there's divers who venture below the 130fsw limit, the local existing dive operations are not necessarily all living 100% within the rules that they're trying to get strictly enforced on the new competition from Nekton. For example, the local Newton 42 diveboats have 60 tank racks, and the Newton 46 has 72 tank racks (and no one has done 3-tank trips for a decade), which means that these boats are rigged for 30-36 divers. And yet, there is "outrage" at the Nekton potentially bringing in "more than 20", despite the fact that after the first dive of the day (before the dayboats arrive), their respective surface intervals will stagger to reduce their number of divers in the water at one time. Gosh - - why would these day operators buy diveboats that are clearly significantly larger than their allowed capacity? Does bigger somehow make them cheaper? Or less costly per mile to operate? :-) Besides, -hh hh, that's what you get for TEMPERING with the automatic attribution to come up with your WRONG attribution. The post in question was posted by: "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grou...@Yahoo.com> and everyone here already know that I am Dr. Ling, so there is no need for you to keep on posting that "Bob Ling" bit as you had been doing to try to tarnish my professional name. Netiquette alone would dictate that you either use my signed name "Bob", or Reef Fish Bob, to distinguish it from other Bobs, or simply Reef Fish, which is unique in all USENET postings since 1981. If you want to find out about professorional reputation, go to sci.stat.math where I am, after one year, the TOP (most frequent) POSTER, by Google count, and many discussants there had arisen voluntarily to defend me against flamers. If you want to find out some about me in my profession, just go to Google WEB, and put, in quote, the search for "Ling RF", or my full name that appeared in professional journals. > > > > ...because everything worth diving in GCM. LCM, and the Brac are in the > > > > Marine Park, especially Little Cayman, where the majority of the dives [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > But which you've endorsed (per above) as "everything worth diving". > Now you're trying to distance yourself from them? Everyone except a pedantic, arguing, army peon, would bring out such rhetoric for the sake of YOUR arguing, on a thread which had gone very well, without you, about liveaboards and Cayman diving. Your arguing substance and style are DEJA VU, all over again. I've learned to just ignore your NOISE when it reached that point, and you have gone beyond it already. For someone who spend half his diving life in the Brac because his wife does NOT dive, Hugh is suddenly coming alive telling me, who easily had done a couple hundred MORE dives in Little Cayman than he had done in his life time, how much he knew from copying from some Little Cayman dive books. You missed one ot the better books, the one written by Schlomo Cohen. -- Bob. "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com > and everyone here already know that I am Dr. Ling, so there is no > need for you to keep on posting that "Bob Ling" bit as you had been > doing to try to tarnish my professional name. Professional name? Are you teaching again or are you referring to your "retired" profession? Nobody can tarnish your professional name without your help. If you'd just quit helping, your professional name would be safe. I might be wrong, but hh's post above looks a lot like an automatic one, perhaps something his mail client picked up from recent posts? Don't I recall seeing something about you being unjustly attacked by another gang of conspirators, travel agents or something? Damn, you sure do attract attention from conspirators. I can't, for the life of me, figure out why you attract so many malicious gangs. Lee > "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > your help. If you'd just quit helping, your professional name would > be safe. Bob's simply yelling at me because I pointed out how he was self-contradictory. The basic observation and message was that Bob has never dived the Little Cayman & Cayman Brac dive sites that he's compared to the ones that he has dived in Bloody Bay. As such, his comparison is baseless heresay... ...which certainly doesn't help his credibility, be it a "professional" one or otherwise. Bob was afforded by me the opportunity to rationally explain himself, but he chose to go the unethical and irrational "Shoot the Messenger" route instead. ...which also doesn't help his credibility, be it a "professional" one or otherwise. AFAIC, Bob's acting like a "Brainwashed" Novice who swallowed the marketing hype that the only decent place to go is Bloody Bay, hook line and sinker. Seen it many times before. The shame of it is that Bob is squandering the opportunity to have a week of diving in familiar yet new sites with someone who knows the local waters and dive ops, which gives both freedom and flexibility immediately. Personally, I don't think Bob's ever done a real Southside (Windward) Wall in the Cayman Sisters to really know what he's missing, for based on his claims of enjoying deep walls, I'd expect he'd rave about them. And I did promise to not >accidentally< push him off the back of the diveboat when crossing the Bight. What more could he ask for? ;-) -hh > "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Professional name? As Hugh found a student newspaper article about me, 10 years after its appearance when he thought that would tarnish my profession. Why on earth would a 10 year old newspaper article that had NOTHING to do with any of my scuba discussions in rec.scuba.* be brought up by Hugh? As it turned out, he shot his own foot. Check the archives -- but you don't know how. Too bad, Lee. Then Hugh did one better, in rec.travel.air, when his INFO about flying on CO were all wrong, and he bought out something I posted about having bought a mercedes (in 1981) for the purpose of tax write-off. What made Hugh go into such lengths to try to flame me? As it turned out, he was wrong AGAIN. My tax write-off of $50+ was 100% legit (passed both IRS and State audits) as business expense (of my OWN money) when I was on Sabbatical Leave. > Are you teaching again or are you referring to your > "retired" profession? Does it make any difference? My profession is always my profession, whether I am retired or not (which is merely a employment classification). That shows the shallowness of understanding anything, Lee. I am still teaching, without pay, in sci.stat.math, and most of the students there are statistical professionals. Some of them are as bad as you are in your lack of training and knowledge about scuba, as they lack the training in statistics. > Nobody can tarnish your professional name without your help. Why dont you try to tell that to the lawyers and judges about LIBEL and SLANDER. > If you'd just quit helping, your professional name would be safe. My professional name is in excellent standing in my profession. It is also in excellent standing in the sci.stat.math group inspite of occasional snipers now (and a small gang of them last year). > I might be wrong, You have been wrong on several items above already. Why should it be any different now on what you say below? You are one of the few who are CONSISTENTLY wrong. > but hh's post above looks a lot like an automatic one, hh's automatic attempt at tarnishing my professional name. > perhaps something his mail client picked up from recent posts? Why don't you find out yourself to see that was impossible. > Don't I > recall seeing something about you being unjustly attacked by another gang of > conspirators, travel agents or something? So you did. And my posting account was justly restored in less than 10 days, even though Google had over 10,000 abuse reports (real or false) every day, to investigate. > Damn, you sure do attract > attention from conspirators. I can't, for the life of me, figure out why > you attract so many malicious gangs. Of all people, you should know. The gang and lynch mob mentality. It's always easy to attack someone, especially when they are WRONG, to have the backup of other of his own mentality. That happens in every group. I was attacked by a group of bridge players (mostly Brits) in the rec.games.bridge (I even have a list of names for "the VIllage Idiots" for them, as I have a list for the Dysfunctional Gang in which Lee Bell and Hugh are members, in rec.scuba) -- they attacked me for thinking I didn't know math, didn't know statistics, and didn't know bridge -- until they realize that I knew much more in everyone of those areas than they did. THEN they quieted down, just as the sci.stat.* (three groups) of former flamers quieted down, and just as rec.travel.air flamers quited down (and gave Hugh no help that he had to cry for help in rec.scuba! FUNNY), and just as the rec.travel.cruises critics have NOW finally quieted down when they see how they been wrong. The only seemingly unrepentent chicken-sh.t GANG seems to be the dying few in rec.scuba -- and Lee Bell and the Permanent Grudge Holder Hugh Huntzinger are still futilely trying to find dirt of fault when there they kept FAILING to do so. Lee, I haven't heard you saying "Ask him is he knows what EPIRB is" after you shot your own foot THREE TIMES while you had me in your killfile. That's how stupid you are, Lee. Ganging up with Hugh, or several members of the Dysfunctional Gang in rec.scuba is not going to enhance your credibility nor good standing among other readers who are not as easily fooled as YOU seem to think. Now crawl back into the hole you belong -- your "blocked sender's list" which you seem to brag about as if it were your accomplishement until you realize how STOOOPID you were. Adios. I have other newsgroups and much more interesting people and subjects to tend to. -- Bob. > Lee > of former flamers quieted down, and just as rec.travel.air flamers > quited down (and gave Hugh no help that he had to cry for help > in rec.scuba! FUNNY) I can't speak for the other groups, but the only reason rec.travel.air has "quieted down" about you is that you haven't been there for quite a while. You're still just as dispised and disrespected as ever in rec.travel.air as you are in rec.scuba.* > Now crawl back into the hole you belong -- your "blocked sender's > list" which you seem to brag about as if it were your accomplishement > until you realize how STOOOPID you were. > > Adios. I have other newsgroups and much more interesting people > and subjects to tend to. Only in your dreams, Feesh. Only in your dreams. > > of former flamers quieted down, and just as rec.travel.air flamers > > quited down (and gave Hugh no help that he had to cry for help [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > while. You're still just as dispised and disrespected as ever in > rec.travel.air as you are in rec.scuba.* That's interesting that Alan Street KNOWS that I am "dispised and disrespected as ever in rec.travel.air" when NO ONE disputed my post, except Hugh; and even after Hugh looked for help by cross-posting it (for no reason whatsoever) to rec.scuba, the ONLY response was from some one who gave evidence that was directly CONTRARY to Hugh's claim, as I did. Not even Alan Street (who usually stuck his nose in that group) spoke up -- for fear that he would have appear as ridiculous as Hugh did. You're a bit too late, Alan. You're here only to be counted as a member of the Dysfunctional Gang. -- Bob. >>€ of former flamers quieted down, and just as rec.travel.air flamers >>€ quited down (and gave Hugh no help that he had to cry for help [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > -- Bob. If it were so obvious, why do you have to keep telling us? Signature“TANSTAAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 > >>> of former flamers quieted down, and just as rec.travel.air flamers > >>> quited down (and gave Hugh no help that he had to cry for help [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > > If it were so obvious, why do you have to keep telling us? That's because you can't expect the Dysfunctional to be INFORMED. Go read the thread "Bob Banned" in rec.scuba to GET A CLUE. -- Bob. >>>>€ of former flamers quieted down, and just as rec.travel.air flamers >>>>€ quited down (and gave Hugh no help that he had to cry for help [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > -- Bob. Do you mean "Bob's Ban"? If so, you haven't shown much there either. Signature“TANSTAAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 >> "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com >> [quoted text clipped - 118 lines] > >> Lee What a relief to find out you know more about every subject than everyone else on the internet. Me thinks thou doest protest too much about, well, just about everyone. Seems to me that many of those people have some valid experience in the subject at hand. Me--I try to listen more and try to learn something, even if I an expert on the subject. Try that, will cut down on your posting time. Have a nice day anyway. Dan "Reef Fish" wrote > You are one of the few who are CONSISTENTLY wrong. I called you an a.shole. Got that one right didn't I? Learn what an EPIRB is yet? > "Reef Fish" wrote > > > You are one of the few who are CONSISTENTLY wrong. > > I called you an a.shole. Got that one right didn't I? So you're admitting that you LOST. Lee> Lee's rule. He who calls names first has lost the debate . . . Lee> even if he's right. < snip rest of Lee's drivel> That one is just a bit TOO MUCH to pass up. Lee had spent half of his rec.scuba life preaching his "rule", usually when he LOST an argument and had nothing better to counter. In the quotation above, he was preaching to Greg Mossman, apparently after Greg had called someone a moron, and hypocrite Lee Bell couldn't wait to stick his nose in. Yes, Lee Bell, > > You are one of the few who are CONSISTENTLY wrong. and you've lost AGAIN. Wassa matter, hypo boy? You used to call me "an a.shole's a.shole" -- you mean you have softened your hypocrisy? Tsk, tsk. Go play in the sand box with you kind, hh and the Gorilla. -- Bob. >> > You are one of the few who are CONSISTENTLY wrong. >> >> I called you an a.shole. Got that one right didn't I? > > So you're admitting that you LOST. Only if I was the first to resort to name calling. I wasn't. > Lee> Lee's rule. He who calls names first has lost the debate . . . > Wassa matter, hypo boy? You used to call me "an a.shole's a.shole" -- > you mean you have > softened . . . i was right then too. Lee "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> pounded away at his keyboard resulting in: :The Aggressor has a pretty rigid mooring schedule: Randy's Gazebo is :usually the first stop on Little Cayman, etc. When I was on the Cayman Aggressor, we didn't go to the sister islands at all. The Captain reacted to the weather. On my trips to Brac and Little Cayman, I never saw the Aggressor. Little Cayman Diver, yes, Aggressor, no. Dan Bracuk If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. > "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> pounded away at his keyboard > resulting in: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > When I was on the Cayman Aggressor, we didn't go to the sister islands > at all. The Captain reacted to the weather. True enough. I was generalizing to when the CAIV is able to successfully make the crossing from Grand Cayman to the Sister Islands, and ignoring those weeks where it does not do so due to weather. These 'no crossing' trips tend to happen more frequently in the winter months...my SWAG would be that this happens on average at least once per month at that time of year. > On my trips to Brac and Little Cayman, I never saw the Aggressor. > Little Cayman Diver, yes, Aggressor, no. The now-defunct Little Cayman Diver was based out of Cayman Brac, which helps explain those sightings. With most visitors on the same weekend arrive/depart schedule as the liveaboard, it had to similarly be around at the beginning & end of each week. For the Aggressor, if your LC trips were "winter season" when it is less likely for them to be able to make the crossing, this alone could explain it. For the Brac, the Aggressor never came over until the 356 was sunk (Sept 1996). Since the 356 is the only dive they generally do, their general schedule is to come in the night do it first thing in the morning, and be long gone by lunch. As such, this visit's timing and briefness makes it fairly easy to miss noticing from the Brac. -hh > > "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> pounded away at his keyboard > > resulting in: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > When I was on the Cayman Aggressor, we didn't go to the sister islands > > at all. The Captain reacted to the weather. Now hh dashes in with his FACTUAL ERRORS. Afterall, what do you expect of someone who has NEVER been on the Aggressor, but speak as if he knew what goes on. > These 'no crossing' trips tend to happen more frequently in the winter > months...my SWAG would be that this happens on average at least once > per month at that time of year. You're just a WA, making your WAG. It's exactly the opposite. In the winter months, it crosses to LCM AT MOST once a month -- and the total is LESS than that. Perhaps one or two crossings during the period of SEVERAL months, the December - March season. I have been told by several Cayman Aggressor captains that it's the rule rather than the exception of "no crossing" because of the "rough crossing" in those months. > For the Aggressor, if your LC trips were "winter season" when it is > less likely for them to be able to make the crossing, this alone could > explain it. That alone EXPLAINS it. My first CA III trip was in Dec 1990. That was the ONLY time the liveaboard was confined to Grand Cayman and that's also when I first learned about the "no crossing" season, from Wayne Hasson himself, who was one of the captains on that charter. Thus, for my next 13 trips on the Cayman Aggressor, it went to Little Cayman EVERY TIME, because I avoided the winter months. > For the Brac, the Aggressor never came over until the 356 was sunk > (Sept 1996). That's because the Russian Wreck was the only attraction diving in the Brac. > Since the 356 is the only dive they generally do, their > general schedule is to come in the night do it first thing in the > morning, and be long gone by lunch. Wrong AGAIN! The Aggressor ALWAYS moored at Little Cayman the night before, crosses over early in the morning, and return after the second dive, in order to COMPLY with the mooring rules. I have been on those schedules EVERY year, from 1996 through 2004. The wreck was so broken up by hurricanes that by 2000, it was hardly worth diving, except for one large Scorpionfish that stays at the stern of the ship and didn't mind being picked up for on-the- hand portraits. During the latter years, I usually dived the wall, less than 50 years from the bow of the ship. > As such, this visit's timing and > briefness makes it fairly easy to miss noticing from the Brac. It the Aggressor had moored at the wreck mooring at the Brac the night before, it would have violated the mooring restrictions! > -hh hh, the only thing worse than NO information is WRONG information. -- Bob. > > For the Brac, the Aggressor never came over until the 356 was sunk > > (Sept 1996). > > That's because the Russian Wreck was the only attraction diving > in the Brac. Get real, Bob: Wayne had no affiliations with the Brac until he helped get the 356 to sink there as an attraction. As such, he's obligated to try to promote that one site. It has never in Wayne's best interests to promote the Brac, since it was the home port of his competitor Winston, and it would also always incur Wayne higher operating costs: more fuel consumption since the Brac is even further from Georgetown on Grand Cayman. As such, it has always been in Wayne's business interests to "badmouth" Brac diving (besides the 356). You're merely being highly parochial in parroting his interests, and had you ever made any effort to even try to be honest and objective by checking things out on your own, your claims herein wouldn't have been so utterly baseless. >> Since the 356 is the only dive they generally do, their >> general schedule is to come in the night do it first thing in the >> morning, and be long gone by lunch. > > The Aggressor ALWAYS moored at Little Cayman > the night before, crosses over early in the morning... If they left at 4AM, a reasonable person would definitely still call that "night". FWIW, there's even some people that consider any time prior to their wake-up alarm to be "night", even if its technically after local sunrise. > ... and return after the second dive... Which is before lunch, as I said. Gosh, imagine that. FWIW, the basis of my comment of "and be long gone by lunch" is that I've seen the Aggressor well on its way to heading back to LC at 9:15AM. Just do the math. > It the Aggressor had moored at the wreck mooring at the Brac > the night before, it would have violated the mooring restrictions! Cite, please. Afterall, it would be quite odd if overnighting inside a highly controlled Marine Park is permitted, but overnighting ouside of any of the Marine Parks is not allowed. Perhaps you're imbibing too much Kool-Aid on the Cayman Aggressor? -hh > > > For the Brac, the Aggressor never came over until the 356 was sunk > > > (Sept 1996). [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > It has never in Wayne's best interests to promote the Brac, since it > was the home port of his competitor Winston, Get real is right! His "competitor" Winston? Since when was WInston ever a competitor to the Aggressor. "Top Ten Reasons for NOT diving the LCD II" is still in the archives, and Winston has been out of business. If there was anything worth diving in the Brac, the Aggressor could easily have done ONE dive at the wreck and do 2 ohter sites before returning to Little Cayman. Hugh, just admit that you were talking through your hat because you had NO EXPERIENCE on the Cayman Aggressor, NO knowledge about the liveaboard and its schedules, and all you had was some some cheap book on Little Cayman and your Wild a.s Guesses (WAG) on the Aggressor Brac itinerary. > >> Since the 356 is the only dive they generally do, their > >> general schedule is to come in the night do it first thing in the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If they left at 4AM, a reasonable person would definitely still call > that "night". Pointless. The Aggressor does NOT leave the LCM until breakfast time on the day of the Brac dive, so that the mooring time on the Russian wreck is within the 4-hour restriction. One more WAG by Hugh that was WRONG. > FWIW, the basis of my comment of "and be long gone by lunch" is that > I've seen the Aggressor well on its way to heading back to LC at > 9:15AM. Just do the math. If it gets to the wreck at 8 am and decided to do only ONE dive, because of the badly broken shape of the wreck, the 9:15 am return would have been right on schedule on a one-tank dive there. Keep speculating, Hugh. You have NO experience. NO fact. All Hot Air. -- Bob. > > It has never in Wayne's best interests to promote the Brac, since it > > was the home port of his competitor Winston... > > His "competitor" Winston? Since when was WInston ever a > competitor to the Aggressor. Back when he was still in business. Even *you* tried him. > If there was anything worth diving in the Brac, the Aggressor could > easily have done ONE dive at the wreck and do 2 ohter sites > before returning to Little Cayman. The Gospel as preached from the Saintly diveboat owner who would have to have spent the money to do so on the additional fuel cost, which a particular Loud_Mouthed_Grouper has proceeded to swallow "Hook, Line and Stinker". > Hugh, just admit that you were talking through your hat because you > had NO EXPERIENCE on the Cayman Aggressor When you cannot admit that you're talking out your a.s because you had ... and continue to have ... 'NO EXPERIENCE' on the dive sites you're badmouthing? Yes, you're being a hypocrite. Again. Despite ample opportunity afforded for you to avoid being so. Again. FWIW, I would be humored if you actually could provide any citation where I've ever claimed that I've never been onboard the CAIV. Happy Hunting! > The Aggressor does NOT leave the LCM until breakfast > time on the day of the Brac dive, so that the mooring time on the > Russian wreck is within the 4-hour restriction. and: > > FWIW, the basis of my comment of "and be long gone by lunch" is that > > I've seen the Aggressor well on its way to heading back to LC at [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > because of the badly broken shape of the wreck, the 9:15 am > return would have been right on schedule on a one-tank dive there. But gosh, Bob: you just said that they do two dives, not one. And don't think that I made my statement based on a "Sample Size of 1". Furthermore, if they don't leave LC until *after* breakfast (as you claim), for an 8am dive, since it takes an hour+ to make that transit to windward, that would mean that breakfast would have had to have finished by 7am. Figure a half hour to eat and a wake-up call at least a half hour before that and your morning alarm was at 6am or earlier. Gosh, how relaxing! > Keep speculating, Hugh. You have NO experience. NO fact. The list of the Cayman Brac dive sites that Bob's dived on besides the 356: . . . . . . The list of the Little Cayman dive sites that Bob's dived on outside of the Bloody Bay / Jackson's Marine Park: . . . . . . -hh YOur attribution screwed up AGAIN. It should be > > > It has never in Wayne's best interests to promote the Brac, since it > > > was the home port of his competitor Winston... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Back when he was still in business. Even *you* tried him. So? I tried the Peter Hughes Fleet at least 20 times, but once was enough for WInston for me to conclude "Top Ten Reasons NOT to dive the LCD II". Even if Winston were a worthy competitor, such as the liveaboards in Coco's Island, why should the Aggressor Fleet worry about the competition? Both Fleets are doing very well -- with Peter Hughes folding more of his liveaboards than the Aggressor. > > Hugh, just admit that you were talking through your hat because you > > had NO EXPERIENCE on the Cayman Aggressor -- Bob. > > > His "competitor" Winston? Since when was WInston ever a > > > competitor to the Aggressor. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Even if Winston were a worthy competitor...why should the > Aggressor Fleet worry about the competition? "If you ignore the competition, you risk losing to them." > > > Hugh, just admit that you were talking through your hat because > > > you had NO EXPERIENCE on the Cayman Aggressor Cite Please (Second Request). Note that ignoring this request again would be damaging to the credibility of Robert F. Ling, PhD (formerly a Statistics professor at Clemson University), as it shows that Dr. Ling is unwilling and/or unable to provide a credible citation to back up his claim(s). The list of the Cayman Brac dive sites that Bob Ling has dived on besides the 356: . . . . The list of the Little Cayman dive sites that Bob Ling has dived on outside of the Bloody Bay / Jackson's Marine Park: . . . . . As long as these remain this empty, Bob Ling is affirming his badmouthing of places that he's never dived, with all of its associated reprocussions. -hh > [snip] > > Note that ignoring this request again would be damaging to the > credibility of Robert F. Ling, PhD (formerly a Statistics professor at > Clemson University), as it shows that Dr. Ling is unwilling and/or > unable to provide a credible citation to back up his claim(s). "Bump" > The list of the Cayman Brac dive sites that Bob Ling has dived on > besides the 356: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > . > . As long as there's timestamps that show that Bob visited this thread, yet cite requests are ignored and these lists remain this empty, Bob Ling is damaging his own credibility and affirming his badmouthing of places that he's never dived, with all of the associated reprocussions. -hh > > [snip] > > > > Note that ignoring this request again would be damaging to the > > credibility of Robert F. Ling, PhD (formerly a Statistics professor at Get real, hh! You were IGNORED the first time, for your pointless drivel. So, you have to repeat the SAME drivel? > "Bump" Tell you what, after you repeat the same stupid post another half dozen times or so, I 'll fill in the blanks for you. Meanwhile why don't YOU start counting the TOTAL number of times you have dived in Little Cayman, the different dive sites, and the number times you have dived in each site, then we'll talk more. To help you out: These are the Little Cayman dive sites and the number of dives Hugh Huntzinger had dived up to now: Dive Site Number of DIves Randy's Gazebo Nancy's Cup of Tea Three Fathom Wall Eagle Ray Roundup Lea Lea's Lookout Joy's Joy etc. > > The list of the Cayman Brac dive sites that Bob Ling has dived on > > besides the 356: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > As long as there's timestamps that show that Bob visited this thread, > yet cite requests are ignored and these lists remain this empty, I ignore pointless posts by the like of you ALL the time. YOu have the audacity to think that just because YOU have requested it, that anyone has to answer your drivel. You are even a BIGGER FOOL than I had ever thought. Permanent Grudge is one thing. But you don't have to be a Damned Fool like yourself to hold a permanent grudge against me. Get it? Now apply your rule to MY condition that you'll fulfill your request -- that you fill out your LIFE TIME diving experience in Little Cayman, as outlines above, listing ALL the sites and ALL the dives at each site (by count). Failing to do so, you can whine from now to your army bunk freezes, and you are not going to get me to do anything simply because YOU requested. ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!! -- Bob. > Get real, hh! You were IGNORED the first time... Yes, I know that you were *trying* to ignore me. But being of weak will, you couldn't help yourself and here you are. > Tell you what, after you repeat the same stupid post another half > dozen times or so, I 'll fill in the blanks for you. Sorry, but the list *is* already filled out, since that was its point. > Meanwhile why don't YOU start counting the TOTAL number of > times you have dived in Little Cayman, the different dive sites, > and the number times you have dived in each site, then we'll > talk more. Didn't Bob also made a claim that he had "hundreds" of more dives just in Little Cayman than I have dives lifetime worldwide? But gosh - - Bob didn't make his usual inane $10,000 bet on that claim this time. Golly gee, that's really odd. It seems that Bob's talk has become phenominally cheap - - as cheap as his stretch polyester jumpsuits :-) > These are the Little Cayman dive sites and the number of dives Hugh > Huntzinger had dived up to now: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Joy's Joy > etc. I'm happy to provide you that data, Bob, but you will have to pay for it: my fee is CI$100 per dive site, and it is a package deal in that you (Bob Ling) must pay that rate and buy all of the sites I've dived on both Little Cayman as well as Cayman Brac: I'm sure that Greg Mossman will agree to be the lawyer to hold the funds (sufficient for full payment) in escrow for Bob's payment; Bob will pay an additional 20% fee for Greg's services; Bob must send Greg the down payment (I suggest US$10,000) to Greg to put in escrow prior to Hugh being obligated to deliver any data; if Hugh fails to deliver, Hugh owes Bob nothing and Bob gets Bob's deposit refunded minus Greg's fee(s); Greg will be the sole arbiter for determining if Hugh's claims are true and to resolve all other ambiguities or concerns regarding loopholes or whatever else that needs to determined; Bob has until 1 June 06 to accept Hugh's terms and until 1 July 06 to have Bob's funds in place with Greg. Unlike Bob, I'm not cheap. :-) > I ignore pointless posts by the like of you ALL the time. Actions speak louder than words...and here you are ("Dance Puppet Dance!") > Now apply your rule to MY condition that you'll fulfill your request -- > that you fill out your LIFE TIME diving experience in Little Cayman, > as outlines above, listing ALL the sites and ALL the dives at each > site (by count). As I said above, I am happy to so, under the contractural conditions that I have specified. As such, I have been clearly responsive to your request and the action is back in your court...its called "Pay to Play", Bob. -hh WHen I spoke with them at a dive show they told us that they were doing LC weather permitting. >> "Reef Fish" <Dr_Bob_Ling@Yahoo.com> pounded away at his keyboard >> resulting in: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >-- Bob. |
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.